Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that the Government is no longer pledged to support the proposal for a four years' probationary period in the Disarmament Convention?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The hon. Gentleman's question is based on more misapprehensions than one. I have already explained to the House why the expression "probationary period" is unjustified. There has never been any pledge such as the hon. Gentleman imagines: the suggestions reported to the Bureau in October were put forward by several States for consideration, but nothing more. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, from the speech I made in the House last Friday, that the Bureau's decision is to work on other lines and His Majesty's Government concur in this view.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement of M. Daladier in the French Chamber the other day that we were definitely pledged to a four year probationary period?

Sir J. SIMON: I think the answer I have given will sufficiently explain the matter, but I should like to assure the hon. Member, in case there should be any misapprehension on the subject, that there is absolutely no difference between the French Government and ourselves.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many misapprehensions are in the hon. Member's mind?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (PROPAGANDA).

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the text of a confidential circular from the central propaganda bureau in Berlin to its agents abroad, explaining the present aims of the Nazi policy and the methods to be followed by German propagandists in foreign countries, and stating that Germany will no longer endure the diktat of Versailles. and that in the matter of armaments they will accept no supervision even on a reciprocal basis; and will he make representations to the German Government on this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: I have seen in the Press accounts of the publication in a French newspaper of the text of a circular alleged to have been issued by the German Propaganda Ministry to German representatives abroad. The German Government deny the authenticity of this document. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Paris correspondence on the subject, from which it appears that probably the document is perfectly authentic?

Sir J. SIMON: I am very sorry, but, surely, the hon. Member will agree that His Majesty's Government have no concern with a Press controversy between the German Government and French newspapers.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR FEES.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will take steps to amend Note 5 of the consular fee-table forming part of the Consular Fees Order-in-Council (No. 1) of 1921, having regard to the fact that in Switzerland and other countries where the British pound is at a discount consular fees have to be paid at the old parity (in the case of Switzerland at the rate of 25 francs to the pound), whereas in other countries where the British pound stands at a premium the British trader is not allowed to have the benefit of the fall in the rate of exchange?

Sir J. SIMON: I assume that my hon. Friend intends to refer, in the latter part of his question, to those other countries in which the British pound stands at a premium and not at a discount. Owing to the fall in the value of sterling the cost of maintaining the Diplomatic and Consular Services has increased considerably in countries whose currency is still on a Gold Standard, and the Government do not therefore propose to amend Note 5 in any way which would involve the loss of the additional revenue which accrues from the collection of fees at par of exchange. In other countries where sterling is at a premium the local currency is often too uncertain or too greatly reduced in value to be suitable at its par of exchange as a measure of the amount of the fees. His Majesty's Government consider that not less than the current equivalent of the fees as fixed in sterling should be paid, and do not therefore propose to effect any alteration of Note 5 in this respect.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the annoyance to traders of this apparently small matter, and does he not think it desirable to have some uniform practice, that is to say, both currencies should be treated on the same basis whether it is a discount or a premium?

Sir J. SIMON: I quite recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a good case in logic. But I would remind him that foreigners as well as British subjects not engaged in trade use the services of our Consuls abroad, and any concession made in the direction indicated would benefit them as well as British traders.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the security of British loans which are dependent upon revenue from Chinese customs; and to what extent the security of these loans is being safeguarded now that customs revenues obtainable by the Chinese Government have been reduced through the loss of Manchuria?

Sir J. SIMON: As the answer is a long one and contains a number of
figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

There are two loans secured directly on the customs, namely, the Anglo-German 4½ per cent. loan of 1898 for £16,000,000 of which £7,123,625 was outstanding on the 1st January, 1933, and the 5 per cent. Reorganisation Gold Loan of 1913 for £25,000,000 of which £22,287,580 was outstanding on the 1st January, 1933. These loans are not in default.

The Anglo-German Loan of 1908 for the Tientsin Pukow Railway for £5,000,000 at 5 per cent., the Supplementary Loan of 1910 for £4,800,000 at 5 per cent. for the same railway and the International 5 per cent. Gold Loan of 1911 for £6,000,000 for the Hukuang Railways (of which £5,636,860 is outstanding) were originally secured upon certain provincial likin revenues but upon the abolition of likin became entitled under the loan agreement to an equivalent security in the shape of a first charge upon the increase of customs revenue consequent upon the revision of the customs tariff. These three loans have been in default for a great number of years. Likin was abolished on the 1st January, 1931, and the customs revenue had already been very greatly increased by the substitution in 1929 of an autonomous tariff for the former 5 per cent. treaty tariff. None of this increased customs revenue has yet been made available for the service of the loans in default. This was the position both before and after the loss of the Manchurian revenue. After the loss, in July, 1932, the Chinese Government imposed a surtax of 5 per cent. on the customs duties in order to assist in meeting the decline in receipts. The Chinese Government state that there is at present no surplus customs revenue available for the service of these loans. His Majesty's Government will, however, continue to take all possible steps to safeguard the interests of the bondholders in these loans.

Mr. SMITHERS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the coupon on the City of Riga 4½ per cent. Loan has not been paid since 1917 and that Latvia has a favourable trade balance with Great Britain, he will insist upon the payment
of the interest on the Riga 4½ per cent. when making arrangements for a trade agreement with Latvia?

Sir J. SIMON: This matter does not fall within the scope of the forthcoming commercial negotiations with Latvia, the object of which is primarily to bring about an increase in the volume of British exports to that country. The desirability of a settlement, however, has recently been impressed on the Latvian Government.

Mr. SMITHERS: Why does it not come within the scope? Is not this a good opportunity to bring pressure to bear and see that the bondholders get their rights?

Sir J. SIMON: The Riga, loan is not a State loan. It is one raised in the City of London by the City of Riga. I think my hon. Friend will agree, therefore, that while we may press the desirability of a settlement, it is not a dispute between the Latvian Government and ourselves.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If Riga pays interest on money that we lend to Riga, ought not more Latvian goods to come to this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

CHINESE COASTAL TRADE

Mr. NUNN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Chinese Government are calling for tenders for four ships to be used in the Chinese coastal trade and that these ships are being paid for out of the British Boxer indemnity; and whether he will make representations to the Chinese Government that the money returned to China by the British taxpayer should not be used to compete with British shipping on the China coast?

Sir J. SIMON: I am aware that the Chinese Government are calling for tenders for ships to be used in the Chinese coastal trade, and that these ships are being paid for out of British Boxer Indemnity funds. The development of a Chinese coastal shipping service will naturally entail competition with British shipping companies but I am not satisfied that there are grounds for effective representations in the matter. It should be stated that the orders for the ships concerned are being placed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. NUNN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable that the shipping companies of China, which are going through a very hard time, should be subjected to competition, the capital of which is provided by money belonging to this country and which was originally intended to be used for educational purposes?

Sir J. SIMON: I thoroughly share the hon. Member's feeling, but the question is whether there is, in connection with an international matter of this sort, sufficient ground for making effective representations. The same question arises as regards railways in China.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is the best use the money could be put to in order to give work to shipbuilders in this country?

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. CHORLTON: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give to the House the comparative figures of value of total imports into all the Colonies of Japanese and British goods for the nine months ended September, 1933, and for a similar period of 1928, respectively?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The information requested is not available as the majority of the Colonies only publish detailed trade returns annually.

Mr. CHORLTON: Cannot my right hon. Friend take steps to obtain this information, which is so important and necessary, in order to see where we stand against this competition?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not think that I can do that. I think that we all realise the tremendous importance of getting a satisfactory settlement of Japanese competition, but I do not think that it would be practicable in a number of Colonies with a very small Customs service to get the sort of detailed monthly returns such as are supplied by the Customs and Excise here.

COLONIAL SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. HANNON: 25 and 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will reconsider the question of increasing the total amount of Colonial sugar on which preferential rates of duty are allowed, in view of the fact that the
proposed total of 842,000 tons is inadequate to provide for the normal expansion of the West Indian sugar industry;

(2) if the proposed establishment of a new sugar factory in Jamaica has been brought to his notice; if he is aware that this project is about to be abandoned because of the uncertainty whether the product of the factory will recceive preferential treatment in the British market; that the failure of this project will mean a loss of a machinery contract worth £70,000 to this country and a loss of £40,000 in wages in Jamaica; and if he will take appropriate action?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with respect to his announcement at the World Economic Conference that the Government were willing to limit the quantity of Colonial sugar, he is aware that this announcement is causing concern in the trade, in that the total quantity proposed to be allowed will be inadequate to provide for the normal expansion of the West Indian sugar industry, and one result of the announcement has been to stop orders in this country for machinery; and whether he can make any statement which will allay the anxiety felt in the industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer is a long one, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is time that a colony like Jamaica should be given a chance of reverting to its old policy of producing sugar, now that it has been visited by such great losses in its banana plantations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If my hon. and gallant Friend reads the main answer which I have given, he will see that nobody is doing anything which prevents Jamaica producing sugar.

Viscountess ASTOR: What about our subsidy on sugar-beet? Surely, the £5,000,000 subsidy on sugar-beet may have something to do with it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Noble Lady, I think, forgets the very large increase in Imperial preference granted
to the Colonies in the year after we came into power.

Viscountess ASTOR: I do not forget that we are spending £5,000,000 a year on sugar-beet.

Following is the answer:

I am not aware that the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to a world agreement on sugar is causing concern to the Colonial sugar industry generally, with whose representatives I have kept in close touch; but I am glad to have an opportunity to correct the misconceptions which appear to exist in some quarters.

The economic life of the sugar-producing Colonies is dependent on the maintenance of a remunerative price for sugar. In 1932, when the fall in price had not proceeded so far as it has now, His Majesty's Government felt it necessary to come to the assistance of these Colonies by a special extension of the preference at considerable cost to the United Kingdom Exchequer, but it would be unfair to hold out any hope that this assistance can be increased. At present the world's potential output of sugar is very largely in excess of the figures of consumption. That excess of productive power is partly held in check by an agreement between the principal exporting countries; but without a continuation and an extension of that agreement there is a real risk of such an unregulated flow of sugar on the market as will lead to a complete collapse in price. His Majesty's Government believed, and they have reason to think that they had the general support of the Colonies in believing, that the prevention of such a contingency by a world wide regulation agreement was in the interests of Colonial sugar producers. They accordingly stated at the Monetary and Economic Conference that, provided the other principal producers entered into a satisfactory agreement, they would limit the expansion of Colonial exports by stabilising them on the basis of current potential output for two years, with provision for a reasonable expansion thereafter.

Although it has not yet been possible to reach a world agreement, that offer holds good in principle, subject to whatever adjustment of the figures may be required owing to effuxion of time; but no actual restriction is being imposed on develop-
ment in the Colonies. I think there can be no doubt that unregulated expansion throughout the world could in the long run have nothing but disastrous consequences both to Colonial producers, whose output might be expected to fall owing to the losses they would experience, and to machinery makers in this country, who would lose orders because producers would be unable to afford new machinery.

I should add that the question of restriction is quite distinct from the question of Imperial preference. The object of restriction is to maintain the world price of sugar at an economic level; the object of Imperial preference is to afford a preferential market to Empire producers.

CROWN COLONIES.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will take steps to bring about a Customs union between this country and the Crown Colonies?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If, as I assume, my hon. and gallant Friend means by a Customs union that identical rates of Customs Duties should be levied in the United Kingdom and in every Colony and Protectorate that would be quite impracticable.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is the policy of the Government to increase our export trade and to diminish or eliminate tariffs, and will he not exercise his power in regard to the Crown Colonies in that direction and carry out that policy, in order to get our goods into the Crown Colonies without any tariff?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly not. The thing which matters to the British manufacturer in regard to the entry of his goods into the markets of the Crown Colonies, is not so much the absence or the presence of a duty on British goods but the margin of preference which he enjoys over other goods. If I were to follow the advice of my hon. and gallant Friend, the only result would be that, without the least benefit to any British manufacturer, every Colony would come on the dole and become a charge to the British Exchequer.

ACCRA COCOA (PRICES).

Mr. PETHERICK: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
he is aware that the price of Accra cocoa in the European markets has now fallen to 15s. 6d. per cwt. f.o.b. Accra; and whether any action has been taken by His Majesty's Government upon the resolution relating to cocoa passed by the Monetary and Economic Conference?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that the present price of cocoa is most unsatisfactory and the position is being closely watched. I informed the House in reply to a question by my hon. Friend, the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) on the 16th instant that, a draft memorandum setting out the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom had been prepared and sent for concurrence to the Governments of the Colonies and Protectorates interested in the production of cocoa. Two replies have already been received and, as soon as the remainder arrive, which I hope will be very soon, His Majesty's Government propose to send the memorandum to the Secretariat of the Monetary and Economic Conference with the request that a cocoa conference may be convened.

NON-FERROUS METALS (EXPORTS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the exports of non-ferrous metals in the October trade returns are correctly described in cwts. for the present year and in tons for earlier years?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The units of quantity, as shown in the Trade and Navigation Accounts for October last in respect of the exports from this country of non-ferrous metals and manufactures thereof, are correctly stated.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In these circumstances are we entitled to assume that the figures given by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfeil) last Thursday were totally inaccurate?

Dr. BURGIN: They were corrected in the Debate.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the figures were accurately quoted and that the only difference was that by a slip cwts. were described as tons?

Dr. BURGIN: I can hardly subscribe to that idea when cwts. are described as tons.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the word "cwts." was recently placed in an unobtrusive position, and that my error was due to a failure to notice the alteration.

Dr. BURGIN: The alteration dates from last January.

GERMAN RAZOR BLADES (IMPORTS).

Mr. PIKE: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious effect to trade and employment in Sheffield, particularly to safety-razor blade manufacturers, caused by the increasing importations of German blades at retail prices below British production cost; whether he is aware that owing to the Anglo-German trade agreement the fixed maximum rate of duty precludes the Tariff Advisory Committee from recommending further increases; and what steps he proposes to take to relieve the committee of these restrictions?

Dr. BURGIN: The average number of safety razor blades imported monthly from Germany during recent months exceeded that of 1932 by some 10 per cent., and was only about one-sixth of the 1931 average. I do not consider that steps on my part are called for.

Mr. PIKE: In view of the fact that the Advisory Committee have intimated to the firms concerned that action in this matter is nullified or precluded by the Anglo-German Agreement, and in view of German currency manipulations which a re depressing British industrialists in this country, will the hon. Gentleman recommend his right hon. Friend to take steps to terminate the Anglo-German Agreement or to establish favourable conditions for British manufacturers?

Dr. BURGIN: It is not proposed to terminate the Anglo-German Agreement.

Mr. PIKE: Will the Government see that British manufacturers are treated better?

Mr. PIKE: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total importation from Germany of razor blades for the three months preceding the Anglo-German trade agreement, and for the three months ended 31st October, 1933?

Dr. BURGIN: The trade agreement with Germany came into operation as
from the 8th May last. The total imports of safety razor blades into the United Kingdom registered as consigned from Germany during the three months ended 30th April, 1933, amounted to 597,000 dozens, of a declared value of £7,869. During the three months ended 31st October, 1933, the corresponding imports were 657,000 dozens, valued at £9,148.

Mr. PIKE: Does not that indicate the necessity for taking the action suggested in my first supplementary to Question number 63?

Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir.

FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS, TAXATION).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any communication from the French authorities with regard to the withdrawal in the near future of the recently imposed Surtax on British imports into France; and whether negotiations for a new commercial treaty with that country will be commenced at an early date?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary Overseas Trade Department): No communication has been received from the French Government since my right hon. Friend made a statement on this subject on the 23rd November. Negotiations for a new commercial treaty are not contemplated.

JAPANESE INDUSTRIES (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the sum of money invested by British nationals in the textile industry, and in other industries, in Japan, at the latest date for which figures are available?

Dr. BURGIN: No precise information is available, but it is believed that the aggregate investment of British nationals in Japanese industries is small.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it possible to ascertain the exact figures? They are of great importance.

Dr. BURGIN: No precise information is available, but everything that we have points to the amount in question being quite small.

RUSSIA.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made to
date with the Anglo-Soviet treaty negotiations; and whether he is now in a position to make any statement in this connection?

Lieut. Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 27th November, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Mr. NUNN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the outbreak of a new Chinese rebellion in Fukien; who are at the head of the movement; and what steps are being taken to protect British interests?

Sir J. SIMON: A coup d'état unattended by loss of life took place at Fuchow on 18th November. Martial law was proclaimed by General Tsai Tink-kai, by whose orders the Central Bank was taken over on the 18th November and the District Inspectorate of Salt revenue on the 20th November. The 19th Route Army took over the Min River forts on the 19th November without opposition. The naval establishment of Mamoi was taken over peaceably and all Chinese gunboats have left Fuchow. At Amoy, where everything is also reported to be quiet, the forts by the mouth of the harbour were occupied on the 21st November by marines who arrived from Fuchow in two gunboats. The new Government is styled the "Peoples' Revolutionary Government" and the country is entitled the "Chinese Peoples' Republic." Members of the new Government took the oath on the 22nd November. The highest authority is a committee of 11, of whom six are members of the 19th Route Army with Li Chai-sum as President. His Majesty's Minister in China, the Commander-inChief of the China squadron, His Majesty's Consular Officers at Fuchow and Amoy are in touch with the situation and will take such steps as may appear necessary to safeguard British interests, in the event of their being endangered.

Mr. NUNN: Is there any intention on the part of the people in Fukien to join up with the Communists?

Sir J. SIMON: I should need to have notice before I could answer that question, even if I could answer it then.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (AIR PORT).

Mr. T. SMITH: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the proposed building by Japan of an air port on one of the Marianne Islands?

Sir J. SIMON: I have seen reports in the Press to this effect, but I have no official information.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

NEW CRUISERS

Mr. WHYTE: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty where the proposed new cruisers will be built and when the orders will be placed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): As stated by my right hon. Friend last Thursday, in reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth Central (Mr. R. Beaumont), the three cruisers of the revised 1933 programme will be built by contract. The order for the vessel of the Arethusa class will be placed towards the end of the present financial year, and those for the other two vessels will, it is anticipated, be placed about the beginning of July next.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the Noble Lord think, as the whole Labour party stands against private enterprise in building armament s, these new cruisers should be built at a national yard, such as Plymouth?

Lord STANLEY: I can assure the Noble Lady that the Government dockyards have sufficient work in hand already.

BUILDING PROGRAMME.

Mr. LIDDALL: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is his intention to construct ships up to the maximum treaty limits?

Lord STANLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement by my right hon. Friend made on this subject in the course of a Debate on 30th November, 1932. As regards cruisers, we are building as much new tonnage as the London Naval Treaty
allows us to build. As regards destroyers and submarines, we are not building all the new tonnage that we might: in view of the importance of maintaining a steady replacement programme, we prefer to retain, temporarily, a corresponding amount of existing tonnage.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that we are entitled to spend something like £39,000,000 under the Treaty, and did not the First Lord tell me a short time ago that we had only authorised some £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 of that £39,000,000

Lord STANLEY: In answering those questions, we were dealing in terms of tonnage, and not of money.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that our position with regard to destroyers over age, and therefore obsolete and capable of being replaced under the London Treaty, is so large that we can build a complete flotilla for many years to conic and yet not overstep the mark?

Lord STANLEY: I said we prefer to keep to a steady programme of building one flotilla a year so that we can embody new improvements.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: We can still build two and not overstep.

DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give the number of men working at His Majesty's dockyard under Vote 8 in November, 1933, and in November, 1931, established men and hired men?

Lord STANLEY: On the assumption that the hon. Member refers to His Majesty's dockyard at Portsmouth, the numbers of workpeople employed under Vote 8 were as follow:


Week ended
Established.
Hired.


21st November, 1931
3,298
7,051


18th November, 1933
3,054
7,668

LOWER DECK PROMOTIONS.

Mr. COVE: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of commissions a warded to the lower deck for sublieutenant and sub-lieutenant (E); the number of special entry cadets to be entered for executive and engineering
duties; and the total number of cadets to be entered at Dartmouth College this year?

Lord STANLEY: Six general service ratings and four engineering ratings have been promoted to acting sub-lieutenant and acting sub-lieutenant (E), respectively, in 1933. Twenty-three special entry cadets (executive), 11 special entry cadets (engineering) and 104 Dartmouth cadets have been entered this year. The above figures represent the totals for the year.

Mr. COVE: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of officers, ex-cadet and ex-mate, respectively, now undergoing the long specialist courses for gunnery, torpedo, navigation, signals, wireless telegraphy, anti-submarine, physical and recreational training and staff duties; and the number of ex-mates to be selected for next year's courses?

Lord STANLEY: The numbers of officers ex-cadet undergoing the gunnery, torpedo and staff duties courses are 10, 8 and 18 respectively. No officers ex-mate are undergoing these courses. The remaining courses mentioned in the question are not running at present.
No ex-mates have been selected to undergo next year's courses in gunnery, signals and wireless telegraphy, anti-submarine and staff duties. Officers have not yet been selected for next year's torpedo, navigation and physical and recreational training courses.

Mr. COCKS: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the ages of each one of the six sub-lieutenants, ex-lower deck, in January, 1934, and the maximum and minimum ages of the sub-lieutenants, ex-cadet, with whom the former will then commence courses?

Lord STANLEY: The ages on the 1st January, 1934, of the six acting sublieutenants promoted from the lower deck in 1933 will be as follow:

21 years
5 months.


21 years
10 months.


22 years
0 months.


22 years
6 months.


24 years
7 months.


25 years
4 months.

The minimum and maximum ages on the same date of the acting sub-lieutenants, ex-cadet, with whom the six will join up will be 20 years 1 month and 22 years.

Mr. COCKS: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of Lieutenant-Commanders in the zone for promotion to Commander on 31st December next; the number of promotions to be made; the number of Lieutenant-Commanders (ex-mate) in the zone; and the number of the latter now serving in fully-commissioned ships of the sea-going Fleet?

Lord STANLEY: The number of Lieutenant-Commanders in the zone for promotion to Commander on 31st December next is 421 including ex-Mates. The number of promotions to be made is 25. The number of Lieutenant-Commanders (ex-Mate) in the zone is 30, including three who are not qualified by sea service for promotion: 17 of these are serving in fully commissioned ships of the seagoing Fleet.

Mr. COCKS: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why only six of the final 12 candidates recommended by the Fleet selection boards for commissions under the new sub-Lieutenant scheme were promoted, as against 12 commissions awarded in 1931 and in 1932 under the old Mate scheme of promotion from the lower deck?

Lord STANLEY: The number of commissions given in 1932 was 8 and not 12. The old regulations did not provide for any further selection of candidates after they had once been put forward by the Fleet Committees. The new system of selection by a Final Selection Board after the preliminary course of training may in some years lessen the numbers from which the final choice is made. I would add that the average number promoted to commissioned rank in the years 1923 to 1930 is 6½.

BUILDING PROGRAMME.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many new vessels of the 1933 building programme have already been ordered; and what is the number of vessels for which contracts have been placed, and their value, with private firms, and the names of those firms, and with Government dockyards, respectively?

Lord STANLEY: Apart from small craft, the vessels of the 1933 building programme that have been ordered to date are:
The Convoy Sloop (His Majesty's Ship "Bittern") from Messrs. J. Brown & Co., Ltd., Clydebank, and The Coastal Sloop (His Majesty's Ship "Kingfisher") from Messrs. Fairfield Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., Govan.
It would not be in the public interest to disclose the contract prices.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that £6,500,000 has been given to private shipyards, and only £1,500,000 to Government dockyards, and will the Noble Lord tell the House why there is this discrimination against Government dockyards?

Lord STANLEY: The hon. Member does not take into account what work the Government dockyards are doing in repairs, which largely accounts for it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Noble Lord tell us why private dockyards should get four times as much as Government dockyards?

Lord STANLEY: I have given the reason already, that the main purpose for which we require national dockyards is for repair work.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that there are 12 times the number of workers outside the Admiralty dockyards who have to be provided for?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the number of immigrants permitted to enter Palestine in the first eight months of the present year was over five times as great as the number immigrated during each of the two preceding years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The main reason for the increase is the great improvement which has recently taken place in the economic position of Palestine. This has rendered the country attractive to immigrants of the self-supporting class, and has also made it possible for the High Commissioner to approve larger half-yearly quotas for the admission of immigrants of the wage-earning class.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not more probable that this large increase in the number of Jewish immigrants was the direct cause of the Arab revolt?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I certainly should not accept a statement of that kind.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not an extraordinary coincidence that there should be this enormous increase?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I very much regret that that suggestion has been made. The policy of His Majesty's Government, carried out impartially by the High Commissioner, is that the immigration into Palestine is directly governed by the absorptive capacity of the country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is, as a, result of the Arab riots in Palestine, making any change in the policy of admitting Jews into Palestine?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the riots by Arabs against Jews have no connection with the round up and deportation of Jews which is going on now?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That seems to me to have nothing whatever to do with the question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked. He asked whether there is any change in the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to immigration. The answer to that question is "No."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the rounding up and deportation of Jews in Palestine an old policy, or is it a new policy?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The total number of immigrants who go into Palestine must be the number authorised by the High Commissioner. It is, I should think, the best policy for everybody concerned to see that the immigrants entering Palestine are authorised immigrants entering through proper channels, and not unauthorised immigrants who are coming in.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As about 20,000 have come in, does the right hon. Gentleman really contemplate deporting the lot and sending them back to Germany?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposed legislative assembly for Palestine will be given control of the police?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I thought I had made it plain in my answers to the right hon. Member last week that the establishment of a legislative council has never been intended to supersede the executive authority of the High Commissioner.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

Mr. MANDER: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made for the carrying on of the administration in Malta; and whether any of the recently dismissed Ministers are to receive appointments?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I informed the House on the 7th November, the administration of Malta has been taken over by the Imperial authorities. One of the ex-Ministers, Dr. Micallef, has been selected for appointment as Superintendent of Agriculture.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the amount of the salary to be paid to him?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that I could do so without notice. I think that it is about £400 a year, but I will give the answer if the hon. Gentleman will put down the question.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the appointment of Dr. Micallef has given rise to very grave apprehension in the island?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I am not aware that it had—I think there is another question on the Paper—but I may say that, in making the appointment, the Governor informed me that, he was absolutely satisfied of Dr. Micallef's loyalty to the policy of His Majesty's Government and with his qualifications for the post.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether Dr. Micallef supported his Government, who insisted upon violating the laws of this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that the position is, that in all Governments, as the hon. Gentleman may have
learnt from his share of government, there may be no doubt a variety of view of one sort or another. But I think it is a fair statement to say that I am certain that the bulk of the people in Malta are entirely at one with His Majesty's Government and this House in the policy which should be pursued, and I am very glad that members of all parties in Malta should give loyal support to the Government and this House in pursuit of that policy.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the appointment of Dr. Giuseppe Micallef, one of the recently dismissed Ministers in Malta, to be Superintendent of Agriculture is of a temporary or permanent nature; and on what grounds this post has been given to an ex-Minister in preference to a civil servant of experience?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Dr. Micallef's appointment is probationary in the first instance. He was selected because the Governor considered him to he the most suitable person for the post in question.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is most discouraging to a small but intensely loyal Civil Service to have one of the best paid posts given over the heads of those who must be better qualified, including Mr. Borge, who is second in command of this Department and who has received written appreciation from no fewer than two previous Colonial Secretaries.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In a matter of this kind I am not prepared to overrule the considered judgment of the Governor in making an appointment.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Are we to understand that as a result of the policy of which this appointment marks the beginning former Socialist ex-Ministers will shortly be given posts in the British Civil Service?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No such application has been made or entertained. The whole object of the Governor whom I am not prepared to overrule in this matter of local interest, has been to get the best man for the job.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Having regard to the very strong protests that have been made in the Island, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Will he acquaint himself with the protests that are being made?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member refers to the protests made in the Island. I think we are all practically agreed that the policy should be carried out and I have the greatest objection to interfering with the man on the spot in carrying out the policy which we all desire.

Sir A. KNOX: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state for what reason the police force in Malta has been transferred from popular to Government control?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Under the Malta Constitution Act, 1932, provision was included for making the establishment, discipline, control and administration of the police a reserved matter.
In accordance with that provision and with my approval the Governor took over the control of the police on the 20th September last, since he considered this course desirable in the interests of the good administration of the force. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Governor has now again assumed control of the whole Government of the Island.

Sir A. KNOX: Will -he right hon. Gentleman make known the result of this disastrous experiment to the Joint Select Committee on India, now sitting?

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTSERRAT (ORDINANCE 8, 1933).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the petition received from Montserrat protesting against the passing of Ordinance 8 of 1933, which provides for the treasurer sitting as a magistrate in cases in which the Treasury is itself prosecuting; and whether he is prepared to recommend the disallowance of the ordinance?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: For reasons of economy it has been found necessary to combine the posts of Commissioner, Magistrate and Treasurer. The Commissioner is enabled as Treasurer to exercise a general supervision over the
Treasury, but he does not in fact advise that a particular case should be brought before him, and whilst being Prosecutor in name, takes no active part except as Magistrate. All proceedings are conducted by the Assistant Treasurer. The Commissioner's functions as Magistrate are general and are not, of course, limited to revenue cases. As the hon. Member is aware similar legislation exists in other parts of the Empire where the numbers of staff are limited. In these circumstances, while I have considered the petition to which the hon. Member refers, I am not prepared to advise His Majesty to exercise his power of disallowance in respect of this Ordinance. The Governor of the Leeward Islands is being informed accordingly.

Sir. R. HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is a suitable arrangement and in accordance with our British ideas that a Treasury official should be judge and prosecutor Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to utilise the services of justices of the peace, who do not occupy such a position?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. That has been considered. I do not like the way my hon. Friend has put his supplementary question in view of the answer. He will remember that during the time I had the privilege of his assistance we had to consider this matter, which has been in operation in many colonies, and I do not know that he or I took any exception to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA (NATIVE EDUCATION).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the representations of British scientists, of which a copy has been sent to him, in favour of an inquiry into the causes of native backwardness in Africa; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received a letter from the Eugenics Society urging that steps should be taken to carry on and expand certain researches recently carried out in Kenya. I propose to consult the Colonial Government as to whether any steps can be taken to prosecute an inquiry of the nature sug-
gested, but in the present state of the Colony's finances I very much doubt whether the Colony could find the necessary funds, and I should not be prepared to suggest that the burden should fall on the Government of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (MILITARY INCURSION).

Mr. MURRAY-PHILIPSON: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information regarding the recent incursions made by the troops of a neighbouring potentate into a remote area of the Aden Protectorate, resulting in livestock being looted and hostages taken from tribesmen under British protection; whether air action has been taken or threatened against the frontier fortresses from which the marauding troops came; and has the return of hostages and loot been secured and the position stabilised?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In June last Zeidi troops and tribesmen made an incursion into the Subeihi area of the Aden Protectorate, and carried off some hostages and loot. Representations were made to the Imam of the Yemen, and complete restitution was obtained. No further incursion has since been reported.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his forthcoming visit to the East African dependencies will be of an official nature; and whether he will make use of this opportunity to discuss with the authorities in those territories the advisability of taking early action with regard to the Congo Basin treaties?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am hoping, during the Christmas Recess, to pay a short visit by air to East Africa. As in the case of my recent tour in the Near East, the visit will be of an informal nature. My object is to obtain some first-hand knowledge of conditions in the territories to be visited and to meet in person members of the various local communities, both official and un-official. This will give me the opportunity of discussing with the authorities in each territory any important questions
of interest to them, an opportunity which I found of great value in Palestine and Cyprus.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman meet any representatives of the Indians or the natives?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no doubt that I shall meet representatives of everybody.

Mr. CHORLTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to Japanese competition?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not need to visit East Africa in order to do that. It is before me all the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

CUSTOMS DUTY ON FUEL

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that some foreign countries over which British commercial aviation services operate still charge full customs duties upon fuel taken in aeroplanes even though such fuel is not for consumption over the territory of the country charging the duty; and whether, as foreign aeroplanes are allowed to take on board fuel free of duty in similar circumstances in British territory, he will make imme-

—
Aircraft employed on regular air transport services.
Total number of registered aircraft.


Total number.
Total horse-power.
Air transport aircraft.
Other categories of aircraft.


Great Britain
…
…
…
34
45,520
42
939


France
…
…
…
259
149,555
489
1,116


U.S.A.
…
…
…
544
385,960
560
9,800


Italy
…
…
…
82
68,235
115
463


Germany
…
…
…
178
90,865
336
695

CUSTOMS CLEARANCE.

Mr. WHITESIDE: 47.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air Whether, in view of the Air Ministry orders of 15th November in regard to machines entering the Croydon zone, he will take steps to obviate the necessity of pilots having to clear customs when landing to receive their navigation orders?

diate representations to the countries concerned in order to rectify this matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I regret that I have no information of substance to add to the replies given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on 7th December, 1932, and 21st June, 1933. A meeting of the appropriate League of Nations committee was to have been held by this time, but has been postponed till the end of the year.

STATISTICS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how the total numbers and horse-power of British commercial and private aeroplanes compare with those of France, United States of America, Russia, Italy and Germany, respectively?

Sir P. SASSOON: As the answer contains figures in tabulated form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICI A I, REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The table below gives the available information as at the 31st December, 1932. I have no authentic information with regard to Russia, and it is not possible to give the particulars as regards other countries in the precise form asked for.

Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. Friend has in mind aircraft arriving from abroad. In such cases the landing will normally be made at Lympne, Which is itself a Customs aerodrome. In the rare case when a landing is made elsewhere, by an aircraft not fitted with radio, Customs clearance will be dispensed with if the pilot reports his arrival to a police con-
stable. The latter is authorised to allow the aircraft to proceed to Croydon or other Customs air port, provided no passengers are landed for their destination and no goods or animals are unloaded.

Mr. WHITESIDE: Will the Under-Secretary see that constables are available?

Sir P. SASSOON: I will bear it in mind.

AIR-MAIL SERVICES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 49.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the reasons for the delay in extending the British air-mail service to Australia; and whether he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to expedite the matter?

Sir P. SASSOON: The extension from Karachi to Singapore should be in operation before the end of this year. I understand that His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, who are responsible for the extension onwards, have invited tenders for the service between Singapore and Australia which are returnable in January next.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 51.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the maximum speed of British mail aircraft, and those of America and Holland?

Sir P. SASSOON: According to my information, the maximum speeds of the fastest mail-carrying aircraft on British, American and Dutch regular air services are 150, 215 and 186 miles per hour, respectively.

Mr. SIMMONDS: In view of this ghastly state of affairs is the Under-Secretary prepared to take any action in the matter?

Sir P. SASSOON: I should like to say hat speed is not everything, safety and silence enter into the question, and there are also other factors which operate in an economical working.

Mr. SIMMONDS: But in the case of mail aircraft is not speed the mast important factor?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

FAR-EAST COMMAND.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if, in view of its importance as a
base, it is proposed to raise the status of the Royal Air Force Far-East command to that requiring an officer of air rank for command; and whether the present grading of the officer commanding is junior to that of the corresponding ranks of the senior naval and military officers?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is not proposed at present to raise the status of the Royal Air Force command in the Far East. The answer to the second part of the question is in the Affirmative.

IRAQ BASE, DHIBBAN.

Captain BALFOUR: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what size of garrison ground force will be required for the protection of the proposed mid-desert Iraq air base of Dhibban when fully occupied; how the safe arrival of stores and supplies from railhead will be assured; and what forces will be required for the protection of the lines of communication?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is not practicable within the limits-of an oral reply to give my hon. and gallant Friend the detailed information for which he asks. With his permission, therefore, I will communicate with him in writing on the subject at an early date.

Captain BALFOUR: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what living accommodation for officers and other ranks will be provided in the new mid-desert Iraq air base of Dhibban; whether any wives of officers or other ranks will be allowed to have quarters within the camp walls; and, if not, whether wives of certain officers and other officials hitherto allowed to reside in Baghdad will continue to be permitted to stay in that city?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is intended to provide living accommodation at the new base on the scale approved for British troops in India, but married quarters will not be provided. The matter raised in the last part of the question will be considered at the appropriate time in the light of the circumstances then prevailing. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the move to Dhibban will not take place for some four years.

POTENTIAL EXPANSION.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the approximate time that would at present be
required to increase the strength of the Royal Air Force by 10 regular squadrons?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is difficult to give any precise reply to my hon. Friend's question, as everything would depend upon the circumstances. An increase on the scale suggested could be completed in a period of about four years, since it would be necessary to provide additional aerodromes and buildings. The training of the requisite technical and other personnel would also take some time. In emergency, of course, as was done in the late War, the above period could be greatly curtailed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (POWERS).

Major NATHAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any action upon the Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers (Command Paper 4060)?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I answered a similar question on this subject on the 20th February last, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stockport (Captain Dower). The position is as stated in that answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMY CUTS (FIGHTING SERVICES).

Sir B. FALLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that no cuts in pay will be restored before the case of the Fighting Services has been considered and corrected?

The PRIME. MINISTER: My hon. Friend may rest assured that when the financial situation admits of a review of the steps taken in September, 1931, the claims of all the classes affected will be fully and carefully considered in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the same consideration will be given to the cuts made in the salary of Members of Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is included in the answer I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

TRAFFIC NOISES

Sir W. DAVISON: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a recent order made by the prefect of police in Paris forbidding the sounding of horns or sirens by motor drivers between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.; and whether, in view of the annoyance and detriment to health caused to residents in London and other cities in Great Britain from this cause, he will consider the introduction of legislation enabling similar regulations to be made in this country?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am aware of the order to which my hon. Friend refers and am considering at the present time whether it would be practicable and desirable to institute a scheme of this nature in a defined area in London for an experimental period.

Sir W. DAVISON: When he is taking these particulars, will the Minister bear in mind that this has been successful in Paris and has recently been amended by extending the hour from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. as indicated in the question? There is no reason why it should not be adopted in the towns of this country.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has considered factory hooters, which disturb people between five and six o'clock in the morning?

SELBY TOLL BRIDGE.

Colonel ROPNER: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a charge of 7d. a ton is levied on sugar-beet taken across Selby toll-bridge; and whether, in the interests of agriculture as well as that of the town of Selby and surrounding districts, he will now take the necessary action to free the bridge or assist in the provision of a new bridge?

Mr. STANLEY: I have no jurisdiction over the tolls levied at Selby toll-bridge, but have ascertained that a charge of 7d. per ton is levied on sugar-beet taken across the bridge, no charge being made for the unladen vehicle on its return journey. In reply to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I am afraid I cannot usefully add anything to the answer I gave him on the 27th March last.

MOTORING ACCIDENTS.

Mrs. COPELAND: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that in a number of cases where serious or fatal bodily injury has been sustained in motor-car accidents it has proved impossible to recover damages, even when judgment has been obtained in the courts, as the insurance companies involved have repudiated liability on various grounds, such as mis-statements in proposal forms, withholding material information, etc.; and if he will introduce legislation to remedy this state of affairs and ensure that the courts have jurisdiction in all these cases of disputed liability?

Mr. STANLEY: I am aware that in some cases injured persons are unable to recover damages owing to the repudiation of liability by insurance companies. An insurance policy is a contract of indemnity between the insurance company and the insured, and misrepresentation or the withholding of material information when a proposal for insurance is made is liable to render a policy so obtained void. The question of further legislation on this and on other points connected with the insurance against third party risks required of owners of motor vehicles is receiving my consideration, but the problem presents many difficulties.

Mrs. COPELAND: Is the hon. Member aware that about six months ago an unemployed man standing on the edge of the curb was knocked through a glass window and disabled for life, and that nothing has been done in his case because the motor car was being driven by a friend of the owner? What can we do?

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in the returns of motor accidents he intends to obtain, he will make it obligatory to include information as to whether the accident could have been avoided if the side and tail lights had been at a recognised uniform height and position?

Mr. STANLEY: When the scope of the special investigation into the causes of fatal accidents was being settled last year in consultation with a large number of organisations interested, it was not thought necessary to include the points to which my hon. Friend refers.

TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that drivers of motor cars are fined if they drive on when there is a red light against them, but that no proceedings are taken against pedestrians who cross the road under similar circumstances, thereby endangering both themselves and the motor traffic which has been signalled to proceed; and whether steps will be taken to deal with this?

Mr. STANLEY: The primary purpose of light signals is to control vehicular traffic which is bound by law to obey them. I do not think it would at present be practicable to impose a corresponding obligation on pedestrians. At road junctions controlled by light signals pedestrians should be guided by the movement of vehicles and not solely by the indications given by the signals.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my hon. Friend aware that frequently when motor cars are signalled on by the green light just at that moment pedestrians cross the road and the motor driver has to jam on his brakes, or swerve with the result that other cars behind run into him causing great danger to life and limb, not only to pedestrians crossing the road but to people in other cars and to other pedestrians who remain on the pavement in obedience to the light?

Mr. STANLEY: I agree that great risk is run when pedestrians cross without careful consideration, and I would recommend them to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT).

Dr. HOWITT: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the recent fatal results consequent upon fire in a Manchester corporation omnibus; and whether he is satisfied that adequate measures for the prevention of fire are provided in public vehicles?

Mr. STANLEY: My inquiries into this case are not yet complete. In general, I think the requirements as to the construction and equipment of public service vehicles are adequate.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Major NATHAN: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any action is being
taken on the report of the Weir Committee on the electrification of the main line railways?

Mr. STANLEY: As I informed the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) on the 15th November, the railway companies are continuing to give consideration to this matter.

Major NATHAN: Can the hon. Member give any indication as to when action is likely to result from this consideration?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir. The consideration involves the preparation of very detailed estimates, which necessarily take a long time.

Major NATHAN: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is able to make any statement as to the projected electric railway from Liverpool Street, via Bethnal Green, to Ilford and beyond?

Mr. STANLEY: The projection of the electric railway from Liverpool Street via Bethnal Green to Ilford and beyond is one of the questions which are now under consideration by the Standing Joint Committee of the Main Line Railway Companies and the London Passenger Transport Board.

Major NATHAN: Is the hon. Member aware that for years it has been stated in this House that this matter was under consideration? Cannot he take steps to expedite a decision?

Mr. STANLEY: It could not have been under consideration by this body for a number of years, because it was only set up in July last.

ROAD USER, ABERDEENSHIRE.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the district committee of the County Council of Aberdeenshire, in or about December, 1925, declared the road leading from the Aberdeen and Ballater public road to Lochnagar Distillery, Inchnabobart, and Loch Muick to be a public passage and right-of-way which the county council might be called upon to vindicate at any time; that a gate has recently been placed on the road in question; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the gate is removed and the public right to use the road vindicated?

Mr. STANLEY: I have no information on the matters referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. I have no power to intervene in questions of rights of way, the vindication of which is entrusted by statute to the county councils. I am, however, communicating with the county council on this case, and will inform the hon. and gallant Member of the result of my inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Major OWEN: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the reasons why the Film Advisory Committee has granted a full British quota certificate to a film entitled "Lumber" registered number BR 6,758, which deals with the Canadian lumber industry, while it has refused a similar certificate to a British-made film, entitled "Men against Death," which deals with the slate-quarrying industry in Carnarvonshire, the latter having been granted only a partial certificate, registered number E 9,341?

Dr. BURGIN: Neither of the films to which the question refers is normally registerable under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, but the Board of Trade have discretion to permit the registration of such a film for the purposes of both renters' and exhibitors' quota if, having regard to its special exhibition value, they consider that the film should he so registered. In these two eases the Board decided, after consulting the Films Advisory Committee, and after taking into account all the relevant evidence, that the film "Lumber" did, but the film "Men against Death" did not, possess special exhibition vale of such a character as to justify them in exercising their discretion under the Act.

Major OWEN: Why should a film produced in Canada and denieting a similar kind of industrial occupation, be given preference over a film produced in this country?

Dr. BURGIN: That is not quite the way in which to deal with the matter. The Board of Trade has the assistance of an advisory committee. The advisory committee made a recommendation in this case, and I can only say that I entirely agree with it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Was the decision arrived at after the hearing of
certain evidence as to the film's value, and can the House be put in possession of the evidence that was submitted in respect of both films?

Visccountess ASTOR: How many able women are there on the advisory committee? Does the hon. Gentleman not think women should be on the committee?

Major OWEN: Will the hon. Gentleman not give further consideration to the granting of the quota, registration?

Dr. BURGIN: I will always at any time give full attention to any request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman or of any other hon. Member of the House, but on the information at present available the matter is too clear for argument.

Mr. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman make that information available to the public?

Particulars of prosecutions of Post Office Servants in Glasgow during last twelve months.


Rank.
Age at date of prosecution.
Weekly wages at date of prosecution.
Increase or decrease in wages during previous three years.





s.
d.
s.
d.



Postman
…
21
36
9
12
0
increase.


Postman
…
39
55
7
1
1
increase.


Postman
…
48
53
9
2
7
increase.


Postman
…
21
36
9
7
0
increase.


Postman
…
21
36
9
12
0
increase.


Postman
…
42
55
7
1
1
increase.


Postman
…
38
59
11
4
4
decrease.


Postman
…
45
59
11
3
1
decrease.


Postman
…
20
34
6
14
8
increase.


Skilled Workman, Class II
…
45
61
2
1
0
decrease.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR POSTAGE RATES.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 70.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the harm done by a varying rate to Empire airmail; whether he will state what is the objection to a uniform rate; and whether he will introduce this change?

Sir E. BENNETT: In view of the rapid and continued increase in the volume of air-mail traffic, I cannot agree with my lion. Friend's suggestion that the development of Empire air communications is restricted by the existence of varying air postage rates. These rates are fixed for each air service or group of services in relation to the costs of air

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

PROSECUTIONS, GLASGOW

Mr. BUCHANAN: 69.
asked the Postmaster-General how many employés have been prosecuted by authorities on the instance of the Post Office in Glasgow; how many have been convicted; the wage received in each case; and whether the wages in each case have either been reduced or increased during the past three years?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): During the last 12 months 10 Post Office servants in Glasgow were prosecuted at the instance of the Post Office authorities. Nine were convicted and one was bound over. As the remainder of the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

conveyance which vary according to distance, and having regard to the wide disparity in these costs, it is not practicable to adopt a uniform air postage rate.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that exactly the same argument was used when the 1d. and 1½d. postage was first introduced?

Sir E. BENNETT: It may be so.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND.

Sir B. FALLE: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs if he can state the amount spent annually by New-
foundland in war pensions; and the amount borrowed by Newfoundland to assist this country during the War with men and arms?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The Newfoundland Estimates for 1933–31 provide for the payment of $508,100 in war pensions. Apart from an advance of £400,000 from His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the amount borrowed by the Government of Newfoundland for war purposes was approximately $13,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (POLICE GAZETTE).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received the views of Scottish police authorities regarding the establishment in Scotland of a police gazette on lines similar to that published by Scotland Yard?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): Up to the present my right hon. Friend has received the views of 12 of the 48 Scottish police 'authorities regarding the matter to which my hon. Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (HUMBER EXPORTS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 73.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total quantity of coal exported from the Humber ports during the 10 months ended 31st October, 1933, and the comparative figures for the same period in 1932, 1931, 1930 and 1929?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the answer contains a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement

The total quantities of coal exported from the Humber ports during the 10 months ended 31st October in the follow-Mg years were:

Tons.


1933
…
…
…
2,678,397


1932
…
…
…
2,724,325


1931
…
…
…
3,500,621


1930
…
…
…
5,119,306


1929
…
…
…
5,448,174

I reminded the hon. Member, in reply to a supplementary question on the 14th November, that in 1929 and 1930 the figures were affected by the Central Collieries Commercial Association's voluntary scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SECONDARY SCHOOLS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 74.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what steps are taken to encourage in the secondary schools students with an aptitude for research or inventiveness?

Mr. BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend has every reason to think that the teachers of secondary schools encourage such special aptitudes as may be shown by any of their pupils.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give instructions that, when a scheme for slum clearance has been adopted the competent authority should publish in the Press or in some other suitable manner the names of the owners of the slum property which has been condemned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Under the Housing Acts (Form of Orders and Notices) Regulations, 1932, a schedule containing the description and situation of the properties included in the Order and the owners, lessees and occupiers (other than tenants for a month or less) is attached to every Order made by a local authority in respect of a clearance area, arid notice of the making of such Order is published in local newspapers. The place where a copy of the Order Call he inspected is stated in the notice.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Could not a little more publicity than this be given?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Our object is to get the slums cleared and not particularly to pillory persons who, in the ultimate inquiry, may prove not to be the owners of unfit houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEMICAL WARFARE (DEFENCE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Chemical Defence Committee makes grants to any universities or other educational institutions or to any private research establishment in order to enable research in connection with chemical warfare to be carried out therein; and, if so, what is the amount of such grants for 1933 and what are the names and addresses of the institutions and/or persons who receive them?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Certain scientists at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge carry out experiments on chemical defence problems, for which payment is made to them from Army funds. The estimated payments are included in the sum of £2,555 shown on page 171 of the Estimates for the current year.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 78.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there is in existence any agreement or understanding between His Majesty's Government and any manufacturer concerning the supply of offensive or defensive material in chemical warfare; if so, upon what financial terms; and what are the names of the manufacturers concerned?

Mr. COOPER: I am unable to add anything to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 11th November, 1932.

Mr. T. SMITH: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department is preparing plans for the protection of the civil population against chemical warfare; and will he make a statement as to his activities in this connection?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer to the answer which I gave on 23rd instant to questions by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE COLLEGE.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 79.
asked the Home Secretary the number of
candidates who have applied for admission to the new police college?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No formal applications have yet been made as the conditions were only published last night, but a large number of inquiries have been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY

Mr. BUCHANAN: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a large picture house, situated on the south side of Glasgow, known as Wellington Palace, has had to shut down owing to the operation of the Entertainments Duty, and that other picture houses are approaching the same position; and, as in this way a number of persons will lose their employment, will he reconsider the question of the incidence of this tax?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I note the information given by the hon. Member that this picture house has had to shut down, hut it must not be assumed that this is due to the operation of the Entertainments Duty. All representations which have been made in regard to the incidence of this duty will be given full and careful consideration.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small picture palaces have been obliged to close down as a result of taxation?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, I have not any statistical evidence which would bear out that statement.

Lieut. Colonel ACLAND TROYTE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many new picture houses have been opened during the year?

INCOME TAX.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the actual income assessed for Income Tax in the latest year for which the figures are available, together with an estimate of the number of persons assessed, and for comparison the corresponding figures for 1913–14?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: For the year 1913–14 the actual income assessed to Income Tax was £951,000,000 and the
number of individuals with incomes over the exemption limit was 1,200,000. For the year 1931–32 the estimates given in the last annual report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue show the actual income assessed to Income Tax to be £2,760,000,000 and the number of individuals with incomes exceeding the exemption limit to be 8,400,000. The figures for 1913–14 and 1931–32 are not comparable. The exemption limit in 1913–14 was £160 and the exemption limit in 1931–32 was £100 for investment income and £125 for earned income and owing to the changes in price level the monetary values are different.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman regard his statement as a complete contradiction of the statistics given by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) last Thursday?

DOUBLE TAXATION.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made during the present year towards arranging an international convention to deal with the problem of double taxation?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: So far as this Government is concerned, no steps have been taken towards arranging an international convention to deal with the problem of double taxation, and my right hon. Friend does not think that the present moment is favourable for proceeding with this question. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Income Tax Acts already provide for the granting of relief in respect of income that is liable both to United Kingdom Income Tax and to a Dominion Income Tax, and there are also provisions for relief from double Estate Duty within the Empire. Furthermore, arrangements have been made or are under negotiation with various countries for relieving from double Income Tax shipping and air transport profits and profits derived from business carried on through agencies.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE (NON-MAN UAL WORKERS).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 85.
asked the Minister of Labour if it is the intention of the Government to bring non-manual workers, up to an income limit of £350, within the scope of an insurance scheme?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): After very careful consideration my right hon. Friend does not intend to propose this change.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

SHIPPING INDUSTRY AND SHIPBUILDING

Dr. LEECH: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the present position of the Shipping Industry and Shipbuilding, and move a Resolution.

INTERNATIONAL POLICE FORCE.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the necessity of an International Police Force, and move a Resolution.

HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEDURE.

Mr. DENMAN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Procedure of this House, and move a Resolution.

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the necessity for the continuation of a National Government, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED.

POTATOES AND OATS (RESTRICTION OF IMPORTS) BILL,

"to prohibit the importation of potatoes and oats in certain circumstances; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Captain Ramsay; supported by Sir Percy Hurd, Sir Joseph Lamb, Sir Thomas Rosbotham, Mr. Lambert, Sir Ernest Shepperson, Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Commander Cochrane, Mr. R. W. Smith, Earl of Dalkeith, and Mr. James Stuart; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th February, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

SEDITIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS TEACHING OF CHILRDEN BILL,

"to prevent the teaching of seditious and blasphemous doctrines and methods to children; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Colonel
Baldwin-Webb; supported by Mr. Hannon, Sir John Haslam, Sir Arnold Wilson, Mr. Geoffrey Peto, Mr. Alexander Ramsay, Mr. Mitcheson, Mr. Louis Smith, Mr. Morgan, Mrs. Copeland, and Rear-Admiral Sueter; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th December, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Captain FULLER: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave concern the increasing inroads made in the trade of this country through Japanese competition, and urges the Government to state its intention, in the event of satisfactory quota arrangements not being made by agreement with Japan, to take immediately all steps within their power to minimise the competition of Japanese imports, both in Home and Empire markets, freeing themselves, if necessary, from engagements which would prevent effective steps from being taken.
3.50 p.m.
I make no apology for utilising my luck in the ballot and putting down this Motion for a discussion on Japanese competition, in spite of the fact that we had a short Debate on the same subject last week on the Address, and that it has been raised once or twice on the Adjournment this year. In fact, the most recent discussion on this matter only served to increase the grave apprehensions which existed in my own mind—apprehensions which I trust the Government will remove to-day—that the policy which they have so far pursued in this matter is not as vigorous as it ought to be and as the seriousness of the present situation demands. I therefore hope that the opportunity that we have to-day of discussing this matter will be used, not in recrimination, although, of course, hard knocks will be given and received—that is the Lancashire way—and not in useless criticism which contains no constructive proposals, but that it will be used wisely and soberly to convince the Government that they are wrong in their somewhat tardy approach to this subject, and by the force of our arguments, based on the facts and buttressed by the persuasiveness of the speakers who will follow me, to move them to the action that is necessary and is demanded now.
This matter is not of special concern to Lancashire either, for the competition of which we are complaining is becoming more and more intensified in an ever widening and increasing range of manufactured goods and at prices which not only reflect unhealthy trade, but, by their very meanness, are a direct threat to the livelihood of those of our work-people who are still fortunate enough to be in employment in spite of this corn-petition., and the high standard of living
in this country, which it must be ever our endeavour to maintain and to raise. Of course, our anxieties and our apprehensions are increased with the close contact that we have with those whose lives and fortunes lie within the ever increasing ambit as it were, of this Japanese trade invasion. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade last week exhorted us not to despair, but to have patience. He said that although things were patchy, he hoped they would come right in time, but the only despair which is gaining ground is because the Government have so far shown little sign of directing their policy so that the things that we wish to see happen may happen.
Having said that by way of what I at any rate would consider a reasonable introduction to this discussion, I will address myself for a few moments to a consideration of some of the factors in this problem. I will not weary the House with too many figures, but some certainly are essential if we are to grasp the significance of the extent to which we have lost markets abroad. In the first place, the exports of Japanese cotton piece goods from Japan increased from 1,400,000,000 square yards in 1931 to 2,030,000,000 square yards in 1932; in the last two years there has been an increase of no less than 42 per cent. in Japanese cotton exports; and in the first nine months of this year Japanese cotton exports entering new markets have increased by no less than 96 per cent. Of course, these phenomenal gains have been more than sufficient to compensate her for losses of markets in China and India, and I am bound to say that a commendable liveliness on the part of the Indian Government has lately been evidenced and has led to prompt action there. Moreover, Japan's total gain in world trade in the first nine months of this year is more than £40,000,000, and the greatest increases have been in cotton piece goods, in raw silks, rayon textiles, silk fabrics and hosiery. On this, of course, Japan, in a world trade depression of the greatest magnitude, may well congratulate herself, and this is a question in which we could join with her were it not for the fact that it has been achieved at our expense and under conditions which I think, by no stretch of imagination, can be called fair trading conditions.
Take cotton. Our exports to Malaya in 1929 were 16,500,000 square yards, while those of Japan were approximately the same. Last year ours had dropped to 8,250,000 square yards, a drop of 50 per cent., while Japan's had increased to 37,500,000 square yards, an increase of considerably over 50 per cent. In Ceylon, while our exports have been rapidly decreasing, those of Japan have increased from 23,000,000 square yards in 1931 to 40,000,000 square yards 'in 1932, and this spurt is being well maintained this year. In Kenya and Uganda, while our imports have remained almost constant at 5,000,000 square yards, those of Japan have risen to nearly 30,000,000 square yards. In Nigeria, the Gold Coast, and Sierra Leone, while in 1930 Japanese imports were almost negligible at 20,000 square yards, last year they reached the majestic figure of 2,000,000 square yards. In Jamaica our exports in 1930 were roughly four and a-half times those of Japan, in 1931 she had drawn level, and in 1932 she had outstripped us three times.
That is in regard to silk. In Ceylon, where the Japanese had negligible imports in 1925, they are now 10 times our own, and in the first 10 months of this year Japan's exports to Zanzibar, a British Protectorate, totalled 831,000 square yards of bleached cotton, compared with 592,000 square yards last year, while our trade dropped from 302,000 yards last year to 101,000 yards for the same period this year. In artificial silk, out of 295,800 yards imported, no less than 295,000 yards came from Japan. We had the chairman of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China calling attention recently to price aspects of this competition in the Far East, and he told us that in the Straits Settlements. India, China, and Australia bicycles are offered at 21s., electric light bulbs at 1s. 6d. a dozen, and rubber topped lead pencils at 1s. 10d. a gross; and fountain pens are almost given away at 3d. each. Sir Thomas Ainscough, senior trade commissioner in India, has noticed in his survey the challenge even to India, and he says:
Imports from Japan in a constantly widening range of goods continue to pour into the country and are sold at prices with which both Indian industries and European imports are quite unable to compete.
Surely no further proof is needed from me, although I have no doubt it will be forthcoming this afternoon, of the extent of this competition which we are called upon to face. While better machinery, superior organisation and the like are legitimate factors in trade competition to which we are not entitled to object, I think it cannot be emphasised too strongly that State subsidies and currency depreciations such as are continuing in Japan are not legitimate factors, and the case I wish to make today and to impress on the Government is that steps must be taken at once at any rate to counteract these things which are ruining the greatest export trade of this country. The Japanese themselves recognise the justice of our case. I notice that at the Pacific Relations Conference in August of this year the Japanese delegates admitted that such things as subsidies and currency deliberations of a deliberate nature are not legitimate factors and never can be.
Let us consider some of these factors. In shipping it is estimated that no less a sum than £18,000,000 sterling has been paid to shipping companies in Japan in the last 12 years, and in fact a great many of the subsidies granted have actually exceeded the net earnings of the companies. The subsidy for this year is estimated at 15,000,000 yen. I cannot help thinking what satisfaction a subsidy of that nature might give to our own hard-pressed shipping interest in this country. Through the operation of the Ocean Lines Bounty Law in Japan shipping companies are able to offer considerable advantages to shippers, from 2s. 6d. per 400 pounds at Bombay to 4s. 3d. per 400 pounds at Karachi. Banking legislation affords considerable help to industry and very considerable losses have actually been indemnified from public funds.
I come to the question of work and wages. This I am afraid is a much more controversial subject, but there is no reason why we should not face up to it, because it represents another important factor. I am aware, of course, that, in the last two years, hours of work in Japan have somewhat lessened, though we have to remember that such statutory limitations as there are apply only to young persons and women, and, although there is a slight difference in the latest census figures in 1927 and the figures of
the International Labour Office in its report on industrial conditions in Japan, I think we may take it that 9i hours per day is approximately the amount worked. The Factory Acts permit, overtime, and from the census we learn that no less than 23 per cent. of the workers did overtime. There is, of course, no customary rest day, and the Washington Hours Convention that had a special article—No. 9—for Japan was not ratified by Japan. In Section 4 of the Factories Act the employment of young persons and women is prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., but we are told on page 185 of the report that work is permitted up to 11 p.m. with the sanction of the administrative authorities, and on the same page we are also told that all cotton spinners without exception almost have sought permission to take advantage of this exception.
Apart from the factories in Japan, there is also a very large cottage industry, where factory legislation does not apply and hours of work are longer and wages lower, and this is especially the case in the country districts where goods are made for export to those markets we formerly enjoyed, including Empire markets. I think this explains why Japanese looms have a greater output, especially when we remember that in this country our looms work one shift per day and approximately 48 hours per week, while in Japan not less than two shifts per day and 120 hours per week are worked.
Take wages—and I still base my remarks on the International Labour Office —58 per cent. of the factories and 57 per cent. of the employés in them are paid wages partly in money and partly in kind. Those paying full money wages pay an average for spinners of 1.24 yen per day and for weavers of 0.96 yen per day or roughly 1s. 6d. and 1s. 1d. per day respectively. There has been a further decline in these rates this year, but the decline in the cost of living in Japan which now stands at, 62 per cent. against our own 97 per cent. results in a trifling increase in real wages. Where wages are paid partly in money and partly in kind the equivalent wages for the same workers are 1.27 yen per day or 1s. 7d. and 1.11 yen or 1s. 3d.
I am aware, of course, that Mr. Matsuyama in a book with which he has
favoured us states otherwise, but he has taken his figures at par. In this Report to which I have referred there are reasons given for the low wages paid and among them the large amount of female labour in the industry, 80 per cent. of which is relatively unskilled, and the abundance of female labour available for work in the factories. A most interesting and instructive comparison is given in the Mitsubishi Bank Circular for June of this year where a table shows the international rates of labour costs. The average rate paid to a spinner in this country is given as £2 while in Japan it is shown as 1ls. 9d.
So far I have tried to show, not exhaustively and very imperfectly, the extent of Japanese competition and the circumstances in which I think it is possible. Of course, the effects of it we know only too well. I am not one of those who say that nothing has been done for cotton, but I am bound to say that in my judgment it is hardly noticeable at present. Certainly, at any rate nothing much has been done to grapple with this aspect of the problem, with its ever-increasing menace which we are discussing to-day. Since the trade agreements this year there has been some improvement. I am thankful for small mercies, however small they may be, but I would like to point out that these agreements and any others we may make in Europe do not touch the fringe of Japanese competition in the world markets. In most cases any advantages to be obtained are vitiated by the operation of the mostfavoured-nation clause in a large number of treaties. It seems to me that every concession we gain through the efficacy of our tariffs as a bargaining factor is passed on to Japan, and we are not in a position even to ask for a quid pro quo.
I am going to ask the Government to grapple with this aspect of the problem at once and to say that they intend to free themselves from any and every engagement which may prevent them from dealing with this matter. If this is not done soon, we may well lose what trade we have left, even in Europe. Of course, I recognise the desirability of coming if possible to some agreement with Japan and of an endeavour being made for an arrangement first with the Empire where surely we have some right to speak, and then in the markets outside. I do not
want a fiscal war, but I would point out with all respect to the Government that it is we who are being attacked and ever and ever more mercilessly, and, if we do not exert ourselves very soon, there will not be very much to defend. In view of the warning of the President of the Board of Trade to France last week, a most timely warning which had our fullest support, I think the President of the Board of Trade should be the last to talk to us of fiscal war. There he showed an appreciation of facts and a courage which I want to invite him to show to-day in dealing with this question which is much more vital to the trade of this country.
Negotiations are now proceeding, and we of course wish well to them and to those who are participating in them, but it seems to me that they may well be useless if they are the only negotiations we are undertaking to deal with this problem. I believe Japan has stipulated —I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that any agreement made must be limited to Great Britain, Palestine, Ceylon, East Africa and the Straits Settlements. Surely we cannot accept these limitations as a basis for a full discussion of this question. Further, I understand that the Japanese Government, although it has signified its intention of co-operating in this matter and in these negotiations, has stated that it kill not necessarily be bound by any resulting decisions. If this is really the case, may I ask with whom we are to treat in such matters as currency depreciation and State subsidies to Japanese industries? Really, this is outside the scope of our industrialists in their discussions with their opposite numbers from Japan, and it must be a matter for the Government.
I would like to invite them now, first, to take such action as is left to us within our Empire, which we ourselves have done so much to develop and where the favourable conditions now prevailing, which we alone have created, seem to favour every one except ourselves; and, second, to free themselves from all engagements into which they may have entered which may prevent them from taking effective steps to deal with this problem and, above all, to initiate such compensatory measures as will meet the depreciation of the yen. I ask them to act promptly. This is not an endeavour to wring same concession
from the Government. so that we can go to our constituents and say. "We have done this, we have got this from the Government." It is a question which surely transcends any personal considerations. The Government should act instead of exhorting us to exercise patience. That is the hope we still have left. We are not despairing of the ability of our people or of this country to make good under fair conditions, but we want the Government to help and to create, as far as they are able, fair conditions for them. I think that I cannot do better than quote from an article which appeared in the "Times" last Thursday, which admirably summarises the issues in this grave problem. The writer says:
No industry can by itself counteract the greatest direct advantage at present enjoyed by Japan—the enormous bonus derived from her depreciated currency. That is entirely the province of the Government, and, so far as Empire markets are concerned, lies will within it. The Government through the Ottawa agreements and otherwise is in a position to adopt concerted measures, without hardship to anybody or justifiable complaint on the part of Japan, which will counterbalance any advantages she obtains as a result of her depreciated currency. And this can be clone without vitiating the spirit of existing treaties or even abusing the true meaning of the most-favoured-nation clause. Japan cannot complain if her currency advantage is checked in trading with the Empire; she cannot equitably demand a greater degree of tolerance in others than she herself exercises towards them. Does she permit the entry of foreign goods into her own Empire on the same terms as her own? She should not expect either equality or a better footing in Empire markets than that enjoyed by our own nationals, who alone contributed to their present political and commercial status.
The argument is often advanced that if we close our markets to Japan she will attack us in neutral markets: the fact is that most other nations are equally anxious to prevent her taking advantage of their own nationals or of friendly nations on whom they are dependent. In trying to maintain a meaningless sanctity of treaty obligations the British Government falls into the greater error of procrastination, by which encouragement is given to those benefiting by unnaturally low prices, and a sense of injustice may be induced when preventive steps are actually taken.
On the broader aspects of this question I have no time to dilate. The House has been good enough to give me an attentive hearing, and I am anxious that other
speakers should have sufficient time. It may well be that this is the beginning of a clash in which the low standards of riving in the East challenge those of the West through commerce, and when, in spite of this, efficiency in production may well be equalised. If we adhere to the old Free Trade belief of increasing consumers' surplus at any cost, we may all be living on cheap products with the whole of our industrial population on the dole. Before that comes, is it too much to hope that the statesmen of the West will see the warning and concert their action so that the West may still be able to maintain and even to raise the standards of living which we now enjoy '? Reconciliation of interests has ever been one of the dominant problems of the British Empire. With this emergence of Japan it has become one of the dominant problems of the world. The first requisite for our own salvation is for the Government to save, as far as they can, the cotton industry by creating for it fair conditions of trade.

4.22 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I beg to second the Motion.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has moved the Motion for enabling me to second it because it affords the Government the opportunity of allaying the fears of Lancashire that the cotton trade is not receiving their serious attention. I know that this is not true, but it may be due to the manner in which the President of the Board of Trade has dealt with this subject when it has come up from time to time in this House. In applying the doctor's mandate to the cotton industry his bedside manner, to say the least, has been very unsatisfactory. Our constituents know that their hope must lay in this Government. They have no hope in anything that a Labour Government could do to deal with this great problem of Japanese competition, because, on the purely Free Trade theory, seeing that Japan can produce cotton goods at a cheaper rate than we can, we would permit our markets to be flooded, our mills to be closed, and the operatives compelled to find some other means of livelihood. The National Government cannot, and I am sure will not, allow an industry which has contributed so much to the wealth and power of this country to be swept away because of a slogan or
to permit our people to lose their livelihood because of a political theory, which in former times may have been true, but which to-day is utterly useless to meet the difficulties of the case.
Serious alarm is felt, not only in Lancashire and the Empire, but throughout the western world, lest the standards of life of the white people or the amenities which we so much value should be lowered or destroyed because of Japanese competition. So dark are the forebodings of Lancashire that some people have lost hope altogether. Mills have been closed and some responsible people have told me that if the Japanese competition is allowed to go unchecked there will be no cotton industry in three or four years time. I have received letters from all parts of the Empire deploring the difficulties that Japan is making in Empire markets. Here is a letter from Malta, whose administration we have completely taken over. It is written to a Manchester salesman, and says:
What can we do at present with this Japanese competition? All clients wish to help you, but you must realise that if they bought from you or any other Manchester house they would not be able to sell the goods. Therefore, no serious merchant dare place an order with Manchester or he would be sure to suffer a loss. if there were no such thing as Japanese competition a good trade could be done.
Here is another:
We are very sorry we have not been able to do business for such a long time owing to the competition of Japan. We have been finding it impossible to continue importing from England and therefore have had to cut our business relations with your good sales.
If we look at the Board of Trade returns, we find that during the last eight months of 1932, for the first time in history, Japan exceeded our exports in cotton goods, and yet when we have told the President of the Board of Trade these facts, he has replied by telling us that we should not be discouraged, that we should not take a gloomy view of things. Look, he says, at the increased employment, at our increased exports. In fact, he has told us to try that policy which was first tried by the celebrated Doctor Coué, who said that if you are ill you should say every day, "I am getting better and better." To my amazement the hon. Member for Oldham—and Tokio—(Mr. Crossley) in his last speech, which was
commended by the President of the Board of Trade, said, quoting Lord Bacon:
 Let us stay a little that we may make an end the sooner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1933; col. 320, Vol. 283.]
It is because the cotton trade may end sooner by a policy of waiting longer that we say to the Government of which we are loyal Members that the time for patience is past and the day for courage and action has come. There may be reasons for this slow policy of the Government which have not been told us. For instance, the Government may feel that this country is so weak and defenceless that we are unable to back up our moral exordiums by anything more than words. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs spoke quite manfully from the pulpit of the League of Nations, and not content with that, he climbed to the very top of the steeple in pointing out what Japan should do, but what happened? Japan virtually told him and this country and the rest of the world to mind their own business. The Foreign Secretary climbed down; he was still protesting, but he climbed down.
I therefore ask the President of the Board of Trade, Are we committed to this policy of negotiations because we are afraid of Japan? Is it the case that we have been so weakened by all the spineless utterances of militant Labour pacifists that, for the sake of peace, we have decided to leave our markets to the Japanese? If our workers are to be crucified on the cross of peace, let us have the satisfaction of knowing that we are entitled to the martyr's crown. But are we going to leave our markets simply because we do not wish to offend the Japanese? Look at our derelict factories and smokeless chimneys, monuments to the stupidity of past Governmental policies. If they continue derelict it will be because we are afraid to take positive action against the Japanese. If the Government say "We have commenced these negotiations, and therefore must continue with them," what then? Are we to understand that if these negotiations break down we shall denounce the Japanese Trade Treaty of 1911 and the 46 other Treaties which tie our hands and prevent the use of the British Empire for the people who made it? What is the position in the Empire
market to-day? Here we have a country that, by the mere fact of depreciated currency, has arrogated to herself a position in the British Empire which no other member of it enjoys. Will the Government give a clear answer to this simple question, "What do they intend to do if the negotiations fail?"
But supposing that the negotiations succeed. Does the President imagine that the Government will have finished with the cotton trade and Japanese competition, that everything will go on smoothly, and the responsibility of this Government cease? In my opinion much more will be required. The question goes far beyond the admission of so many yards of Japanese textiles into the British Empire. What is to be the price of those materials, which, no matter how small the quantity may be, will set the price standard for our own manufacturers? Are their goods to be permitted to come into our markets at a price which threatens to lower the wage-level here to the rice standard of the East and defeat the aim of every social reformer in this country? Will the Government tell us what is the objection to putting on a depreciated currency duty, in the same way that France and Canada have done, and as Jamaica at this very moment desires to do? It would not be directed specifically against Japan, it would apply to every exporting country according to the amount of depreciation that has taken place in that country's currency. if that were done it would mean we could advance. We should regain at least 40 per cent. of the advantage which we have lost through Japan stocking her warehouses with raw materials and then paying for them with a debased, depreciated currency. Will the Government inform us this afternoon what is the difficulty about preventing the pirating of our designs, the imitation of our trade marks, and the passing off of inferior Japanese goods as of British manufacture? Is that a matter which is being negotiated now?
The other day the President of the Board of Trade said that he welcomed any constructive proposals, and therefore I, in all modesty, ask him if he will consider the following suggestions: In order to meet Japanese competition rafter these negotiations have been concluded, in order to prevent a competitive struggle
for the remaining trade, will the Government appoint a Minister, or at least a director of cotton, who would be answerable to this House and be a means of liaison between the Government and the cotton trade, acting in the same way towards the cotton industry as the Secretary for Mines does towards the coal industry? The Board of Trade has very wide ramifications and has so many trade problems occupying its attention at the moment, that the President is, like Atlas, bearing the problems of the whole world upon his shoulders. Seeing that there are so many intricate and technical problems to be solved is it impossible for him to appoint someone who could devote his whole time to getting the industry out of the morass in which it is at the moment? In my opinion it is as foolish to expect so unwieldy an organisation as the Board of Trade to repair the damage which is done by Japanese competition as it would be to expect that one could repair a watch with a pick-axe.
May I suggest that the Government, without waiting for the negotiations to conclude, should—if they will not give us a man to devote his attention to the industry—forthwith set up an ad hoe committee composed of experts from the trade itself, as men who are capable of making quick decisions, and ask them to hammer out a scheme for effective measures to be taken within the industry which will enable the cotton trade to reorganise itself? Such a committee could explore the proposals for reorganisation already set out by the spinning section of the industry. The leader of the spinning section has said that if we could get that reorganisation, and if we could overcome the problem of depreciated currency, then with our superior quality goods we could beat the Japanese every time. Such a committee could outline the necessary legislation to make more binding what are popularly known as the more-looms-perweaver agreement, which were made with the approval of the Ministry of Labour, and which are at this moment being shamelessly exploited by unscrupulous manufacturers who are getting an unfair advantage by running four looms on the six-looms basis. Such a committee could report on the best way in which the industry could extricate itself from the stranglehold of the bank. Lastly, I suggest that such a committee could lay before us a scheme for the utilisation of
Indian raw cotton and thereby remove the moral claim which Japan has to a share in the Indian market. May I remind the President of the Board of Trade of what the Indian cotton delegates said at Ottawa?
It would be useless for them to put forward any recommendations intended to increase the sale of British cotton piece goods in India unless they were able at the same time to show that Lancashire was prepared to increase substantially its consumption of Indian cotton.
The British Mission which has just returned from India has emphasised that point, and it is the view of the Indian Government itself. What steps do the Government intend taking to assist Lancashire to fill these requirements? The recent boycott of Indian cotton by Japan, which for many years has been the mainstay of Indian cotton growers, has made it an imperative necessity to find new and improved outlets for one of the principal articles of Indian export. If we expect the Government of India to continue their benevolent attitude towards Lancashire we must take more Indian cotton. Here we have a striking picture of one of the principal units of our Empire crying aloud for an adequate market for one of its principal products, one of its basic industries. It is not able to place those particular goods owing to the lack of a Helping hand. What opportunities we have here for consummating one of the main principles of Ottawa, and fostering trade relationships between two of the most important units of the Empire, to the unquestioned benefit of both. May I ask what are the Government's plans for—

Mr. GIBSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read his speech verbatim?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): It is against the Rules of the House for hon. Members to read out their speeches, but they have been generally allowed considerable latitude in the extent to which they refer to their notes.

Major PROCTER: I know that it will require a great deal of money, but I am encouraged by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House on 8th November last year, in which he said, speaking of unemployment, that the Government were ready to encourage any industry and would help it with gifts of money if it could put forward some
scheme which would not be a burden upon industry in general. We have the Japanese boycott of Indian cotton to contend with. Is it beyond possibility for the Government to take out of the market entirely 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 bales, that is, 25 per cent. of the entire Indian crop, and to utilise it with the change over of our mills to this kind of cotton? It can be done. I have reports from a number of experts who say that with Indian cotton they can get the same results as with American middlings. If we do that, utilising our Indian cotton, and thus fostering inter-Imperial trade, we can remove at once the greatest bargaining weapon which Japan has in any negotiations. I hope, if such a plan is considered feasible, that the Indian Government will allow such manufactured cotton goods made from Indian cotton to enter India free of duty, and thus we shall approximate more and more to that great Imperial idea of Free Trade within the Empire itself. By co-ordinating our schemes, by stopping the insane competition going on now, by assisting in the organisation of the industry, by having a committee or a director to advise the Board of Trade, I believe that eventually we can beat Japan, for our goods are infinitely superior.

Mr. BAILEY: Oh, no.

Major PROCTER: Well, that is my opinion. I have here a pencil made in Japan, a propelling and repelling pencil, priced at 1½d. It has got the Woolworth stamp all over it. It is the same with everything I have seen from Japan. We must not let it go out to the world that Japan has anything on us. In skill or manufacturing ability I believe they are inferior, I believe their goods are made with sweated labour, I believe they are challenging our standard of life, and if T had my way—though I know I shall never get it—I would see that their goods were prohibited absolutely from every part of the Empire where our flag flies over decent conditions.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: As a Lancashire Member and, to all intents and purposes, a Lancashire man by this time, I desire to make a few observations in this very interesting Debate. I want to say, between brackets as it were, that I have lived longer in the county of Lancashire
than some of hon. Gentlemen who. represent Lancashire in this Parliament.
Every hon. Member of every party must be very much disturbed and alarmed at the keen and unfair competition, affecting Lancashire in particular, from cheap Japanese goods. There is no difference whatever about our alarm; where we differ is as to the causes of the calamity which has befallen Lancashire. There is no doubt that we shall also differ as to the remedies for getting over the difficulty. Conservative Members representing Lancashire constituencies are very diligent in bringing this problem before the President of the Board of Trade, and we want to join them in pressing upon the Government the urgency and the seriousness of it. The hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) suggested that there should be a sort of county dictator appointed to manage the Lancashire cotton industry. If that proposition matures, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not forget the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington in his final choice.
Before I go any further with this subject let me refer to a statement made by the hon. and gallant Member to the Press the other day, about Members of the Opposition. He gave an interview to the "Manchester Evening News," in regard to the cotton Debate last Thursday, and he said:
Imagine my amazement when a number of Labour Members began to speak.
as if we are not entitled to speak here at all.
They made only the slightest reference to cotton and turned the Debate to one on coal.
Why should we not speak on coal? There are several textile factories in my own division, and the textile industry there is suffering very badly indeed. Some of the mills in the town of Hindley have been closed down for several years. But however terrible the economic conditions may be in the textile mills in my division, the condition of the millers is very much worse. Indeed, 65 per cent. of the insured population in the township of Hindley, which was mainly dependent upon coal, have been unemployed for some years past. Nothing could be very much worse than that. Let me just correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman about what happened last Thursday. He
blames Members of our party for turning the Debate on the King's Speech on to coal. He should rather blame the Members of his party for turning the Debate on to the House of Lords, a subject which was far less important than coal or cotton.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Hear, hear!

Mr. DAVIES: I very much prefer the advice of the hon. Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) upon textile matters than that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Accrington. Having made good our claim to speak on coal, cotton, shipping or the House of Lords, I want now to return to the subject of the textile industry of Lancashire, as it is affected by Japanese competition. Hon. Gentlemen must look at this problem in a very much broader way than they have done up to now. Not one of them has said a word to-day about one of the chief causes of the calamity that has overtaken the Lancashire textile industry. That distress in the county has not been brought about exclusively by Japanese competition. What happened during the boom period in Lancashire? That is what some of the manufacturers themselves are asking. Let me quote one of them:
The foolish boom finance is responsible for very large overhead charges in the shape of interest. Mills were floated in 1919 and 1920 at from four to five, nay even eight times, their intrinsic value.
I cannot conceive, therefore, that the Japanese textile industry is as heavily burdened with interest charges as is our own. Our mills were, in fact, bought, pawned and mortgaged during that boom period, in the financial markets of this country. I do not for one moment minimise the effect of Japanese competition, but the other important factors which I mention must be borne in mind when we are discussing it. I could give a great number of similar quotations on that score, but I will not do that this afternoon. I will deal with another point put forward by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment.
The case for Lancashire has been put very well by hon. Members, but let me point out to them the dangers of their propositions. The President of the Board of Trade knows very much more about this side of the sub-
ject than I do, and so I am sure does the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley). He knows more about the international aspect than most private Members of this. House. Hon. Gentlemen say that we must take up the cudgels and join with all Western countries at once to blockade Japan in the markets of Europe. That is what it means, and we must be quite clear about it. I hesitate to think what would be the consequences in diplomatic circles, between Western Europe and the East, should that aggressive policy be pursued. What is to happen in the countries within the Empire? Hon. Gentlemen say in addition that the Dominions and the Colonies should be told from Whitehall what action they ought to take about Japanese competition. I have been in Canada twice and I know a little of the attitude of mind of the Canadians on this subject. If I understand anything about our Dominions and Colonies, it is that there has been a growing desire among them of late to be masters in their own households, without any dictation from the Mother Country. I do not think I am exaggerating when I put it that way.
Let me ask the President of the Board of Trade one question. I have noticed in the Press that some hon. Gentlemen and leaders of the cotton industry in Lancashire have been abroad to try and secure arrangements and agreements between Japan, India and ourselves, in order to deal with the difficult problem which we are now discussing. I am astonished—the Leader of the Labour Opposition mentioned this point in the House the other day—that they should ignore the International Labour Organisation at Geneva. I have always thought that the International Labour Organisation was established by the Governments of the world to undertake the task which these gentlemen have tried to do in India recently. I know that some hon. Gentlemen will smile when I speak of the International Labour Organisation. They may criticise that organisation as much as they like. Although Japan has given notice to leave the League of Nations, she cannot do so until two years after giving notice, and, in any case, she has not even given notice to leave the International Labour Organisation. The question I wish to ask is: Do the Government intend to use the machinery of the
International Labour Organisation to deal with what is agreed, upon all hands, to be the low standard of life of the operatives in the textile industry of Japan?
I have been a trade unionist and a trade union official for a long time, and I know that it is no use hiding the fact that conditions of employment in Japan are lower than they are here on the same job. The Labour Organisation in Geneva was established for the purpose of standardising conditions of employment in all the industrial countries of the world. I hope that I shall get a reply to my question as to whether anything can be done in that direction. I spoke a few days ago in the House of Commons about the low wages that prevail in the Lancashire textile industry. I hope that Members of all parties will agree that, whatever conditions prevail in the textile industry in Japan, we shall not lend our aid in any way whatever to demoralising the conditions of our own workpeople down to the level of those of the Japanese workers. We must not do that even for the purpose of meeting the competition of Japan in the markets of the world. I very much doubt whether, even if the textile workers of Lancashire worked for nothing, Lancashire could compete successfully in world markets against Japan. I remember Mr. Vernon Bartlett saying over the wireless recently that Japanese bicycles were now being sold in Holland for 12s. a piece. If that is so we have indeed reached an extraordinary stage, and the problem is not therefore quite so easy to solve as some hon. Members seem to suppose.
Turning to the industry itself, he would be a very foolish man who would say that all is well with the Lancashire textile industry itself. It is no use blaming outside conditions, and complaining that Japan is competing against us in the markets of the world, and then allowing our own industry to lag behind in plant and machinery. I venture, on my own behalf, to make one or two observations as to what I think ought to be done. First and foremost, I would venture to say, on behalf of the textile workers themselves, that they are very dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to them by some employers who have not implemented the agreements made between the trade unions and the employers.
I trust that the Government will take heed of the complaint of these men, and women also. There has been some speeding up under the six-looms-per-weaver system which has been recently introduced. I asked the Home Secretary the other day whether lie would call upon his Department to make inquiries into the physical results of the introduction of this new system, and the reply that I received—I am not complaining about it —was that the system had not been in existence long enough yet to warrant an inquiry. I am assured, however, by girls and women who live in my Division employed under it, that it is one of the most cruel systems that has ever been introduced into the textile mills of Lancashire.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Can the hon. Member say how many looms are run per weaver in Japan?

Mr. DAVIES: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that what they do in Japan we roust do here. In any case, I will tell him that, if I lived in Japan, I would willingly fight the employers there for better conditions for the workpeople. But, as we are living here, our duty is to see that our country does not fall down to the low conditions of the Japanese workers. There are one or two further observations which I think I am entitled to make. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) put the case in a nutshell the other clay. The Lancashire textile industry—and all hon. Members know this—is packed with petty jealousies. Manufacturers and salesmen in the industry not only compete among themselves in the market at home and undercut each other—and the undercutting is reflected in lower wages for the workpeople—but I believe I am right in saving that they compete with each other in markets abroad, just as Japan is competing with them in the very same markets.
Has not the time arrived when, in this great industry—I believe it is still the biggest exporting industry in this country so far as values are concerned—the Government should undertake, in conjunction with the owners, steps to unify the industry? Why should it not be unified? Why should every individual mill-owner send a man to buy raw material, and send two or three other men to sell the products at the end of the journey? The hon. Member for
Oldham, who seems to know more about the matter than I do, made this statement about Japan:
Seventy per cent. of the raw cotton is imported by three firms, and those same firms export 40 per cent. of the finished cotton goods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1933: col. 317, Vol. 283]
I am assured in this document which I have here, the Bulletin of the International Cotton Spinners' Association, that practically all of the 8,000,000 spindles in Japan are under one control. Even if the Japanese textile employers paid wages equivalent to our own, and even if the textile industry of Lancashire were on the same footing with regard to conditions of employment, I believe that the unified control of Japan would still beat us in the markets of the world so long as disunity continues among our own manufacturers in Lancashire. I leave that suggestion for consideration by hon. Members.
During the War there was in being a scheme of unification; there was a control board in the cotton industry. We are not at war now, but I am sure, looking at the mills and textile operatives in Lancashire, that the conditions under which they live at the moment are quite as terrible as, if not more terrible than, the conditions which prevailed during the War, when that board controlled the industry. Surely, if a control board which licensed manufacturers to carry on their work was good enough in war-time, it ought to be good enough now, when war of a different kind is proceeding in world markets for those goods.
We are living in a competitive world, and I must confess I am a little annoyed when I hear hon. Gentlemen complaining of competition abroad. If hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this House could beat Japan in the markets of the world by underselling her, they would do it; there is no doubt about that. Taking the capitalist system as it stands, Japan is playing the game just as our own capitalists would play it if they could. We suggest, therefore, that we must do two or three things, and I think the Government will probably adopt this policy in preference to some of the 'policies which have been adumbrated, especially by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington. Nothing can come of this business unless we take swift action. Negotiations must continue; the
Government must make the best bargains they can for trade purposes; and the home market must be developed. The people of this country want more money in wages in order to buy the commodities that they manufacture. Indeed, I feel sure that one half of the problem might be settled in Lancashire if the majority of the people of this country had sufficient money to buy the commodities produced in that county. I would say, therefore, that the policy of the Government ought to be to try to get all these conflicting—

Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask the hon. Member if he really means what he has just said? Seeing that the cotton trade is about four times as big abroad as in this country, how could that possibly be the case?

Mr. LANSBURY: We could do four times as much business.

Mr. DAVIES: I say that one half of the unemployment problem in Lancashire might be solved if our people had more money to buy these goods. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is no limit to the requirements of men and women as regards the goods produced by the Lancashire textile industry. If they had a sufficient supply of money, I think our girls would probably get a new dress every month, and why should they not? [Interruption.] I do not want to be understood as saying that we could live entirely on our home market; I never said that. What I wanted to say was that this home market still needs developing, and, therefore, I would plead with the right hon. Gentleman to help to raise the wages of the population as a whole. Lancashire people of every party are definitely disturbed at the situation, and I, for one, although I belong to the Opposition, shall be very happy indeed if the right hon. Gentleman can give us something this afternoon to warrant our saying that the textile industry of Lancashire is not to be allowed to perish.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. RICKARDS: As a very new Member, I rise with the utmost diffidence, and must at once crave the indulgence of the House for someone as new and inexperienced as I am. I have really but one qualification for speaking at all, and that is that I have spent the whole of my business life in the textile trade, and that we fought and won the recent
by-election at Skipton on this question of employment and Japanese competition. We in our Division owe a great debt of gratitude to the Government. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that, before tariffs were installed, not one single firm in my constituency was running full time. Now, since the tariffs, in several of the towns, and especially those that deal with wool and fancy cotton goods, unemployment is a thing of the past. In fact, with firms, big and small, in those towns, the great difficulty at the present moment is to get sufficient hands to cope with the numbers of orders that they have in. I think there is no doubt that that is due to two things —the introduction of tariffs and our going off the Gold Standard. But, supposing that this country had gone off the Gold Standard, and had had in office a Government who were either unable or unwilling to put the finances of the country on a firm footing, what would have been the result? I think I can answer that question in one word—chaos; and that would have been absolute death to us manufacturers. Therefore, I do not think it matters in the least what percentage of improvement we put down to our going off the Gold Standard or to tariff reform, as both are directly or indirectly due to the present Government.
Unfortunately, however, in certain parts of my constituency there are firms —the firms who are employed on ordinary plain cotton weaving and in the real silk trade—who are having to meet the full brunt of Japanese competition, and their story is a terrible one. Hundreds of men and women, the best textile weavers in the world, are walking the streets and drawing the dole; and I think that hon. Members above the Gangway, and, in fact, every hon. Member in this House, will agree that to be on the dole is not living—it is merely existing. That is what we want to save our fellow country-people from. I know there has been some talk, in the great party of which I am a very humble member, about what will happen at a General Election—whether there will be a great swing of the pendulum. My opinion is that, if this or any other Government will face this question of Japanese competition bravely and quickly, that Government will sweep the textile North of England.
There is one other point that has crossed my mind. I am not speaking as a politician, but as an Englishman. I believe that the employers and the employed up in the North of England are drawing more together than they have ever done. I believe they realise more than they have ever done before that their interests are more or less identical, and I honestly think that, if only the employers and the employed can get together, with the help of the Government, an enormous lot can be done to bring back prosperity to the textile industry, which, after all, supports, I suppose, about one-eighth of the population of this great country of ours. May I thank the House for its courtesy in listening to a very new and very inexperienced Member.

5.15 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I am glad that the opportunity falls to me to voice what, I am sure, is the general feeling of the House, of appreciation of the maiden speech which has just been delivered by one of our newest Members. Though, naturally, there may be differences of opinion in some quarters as to the substance of parts, at all events, of his argument, there will be no difference of opinion as to the manner of its presentation. We hope he will often take part in our Debates.
I think the House should be grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ardwick (Captain Fuller), who used his good fortune in the ballot to bring before it a Motion on a matter of great national importance, and also that we should thank him for the able and persuasive manner in which be stated his case. I intervene in the Debate partly because during the Recess I had the honour to be a member of a delegation from this country to a conference in Canada held under the auspices of the Institute of Pacific Relations, consisting of unofficial. representatives of all the great countries interested in the Pacific with the exception of Russia. The subject of that conference was economic questions affecting the countries surrounding the Pacific Ocean, and we had the task of spending a great part of our time on this very question of the development of Japanese trade, and particularly the competition of Japanese trade with other countries. The hon. and gallant
Gentleman mentioned that Conference, and it led inc to make an even more intensive study than I had done before of the factors that arise in connection with this problem.
Furthermore, like the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), I am also a Lancashire Member but, unlike him, I am a Lancashire man by birth, in fact a Lancashire man, as the old theologians would have said, by grace as well as by election. My constituency is mainly devoted to the manufacture of cotton. At present rather more than 40 per cent. of the operatives in the cotton trade in the Darwen Division are unemployed, and great numbers of them have been unemployed for a period of a year or in some cases even two years. Others are only partly employed and, as the result, there is in that district, as in so many in Lancashire, extreme distress among large numbers of a most self-respecting and highly respected industrial population—thrifty, hard-working, never accustomed to look to any outside sources for assistance—who find themselves plunged into the gravest depression. In addition, there are also many old manufacturing families in Lancashire who find they have lost almost all that they possessed. Mills are unsaleable and the whole of the towns are suffering in their finances and in other ways from this grave depression. The main reason is, of course, well known to everyone. Before the War Lancashire sold abroad about 7,000,000,000 yards of cotton cloth.. She has lost five-sevenths of that trade, and instead of 7,000,000,000 the rate now is in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000,000. For that there are two main causes, the collapse of the Indian trade and the effects of Japanese competition.
With regard to India, which is not the subject of the Motion, I will only say that it is undoubtedly one of the main causes of the distress in Lancashire, due to the great increase of protective tariffs, and also until recently to the severe boycott, which greatly affected our manufactures; that, in turn, due to the political antagonism which existed between large sections of the Indian population and this country. But there has been a great improvement in that respect owing to the greater good will between the two countries—and political good will brings with it commercial improvement. If the campaign of the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and those who support him on India were to be successful, in addition to many other disasters it would probably be deadly to Lancashire. We are all glad to know that there are conversations proceeding between the cotton interests of this country and India. The more Lancashire could use Indian cotton the better it would be for all parties concerned in this matter, and the experts say that India now is producing cotton of better quality than hitherto, which gives a further opportunity to Lancashire to buy more Indian cotton. In Japan the use of Indian cotton, which is much cheaper than American, and the skilful blending which they have succeeded in securing in the Japanese cotton mills, are undoubtedly important factors in the success of the Japanese industry at this time. There is every reason, therefore, why the Lancashire trade would be well advised to make every effort to consume larger and larger proportions of cotton from the Indian Empire.
With regard to Japan, it is essential that we should see things frankly as they really are. Statements are made from time to time which somewhat misrepresent the actual facts. It is no use overstating our case. We have a very strong case and it is an error to exaggerate it in such a way as to give our competitors a very easy reply. For example, with regard to wages, statements are frequently mane, and have indeed been made to-day, which exaggerate. It is said that the Japanese worker receives so many yen per week. The yen now is worth only is. 2d. instead of 2s., therefore, he receives so much less. Contrast that with British operatives, who may be receiving £2 per week or whatever it may be. In the first place there is no reason whatever why you should calculate the Japanese operative's wage on a gold standard. The fact that Japan went off the gold standard at a particular date and the yen fell from 2s. to 1s. 2½d. does not affect the real wages of the Japanese operatives except after possibly a very long period of time, much as in the same way, when we went off the Gold Standard and the pound dropped from 20s. to 13s. and a few pence, the Lancashire operative is not conscious of that except in a small degree in respect of his real wages. Therefore, it is not really a just comparison to
take the Japanese wage, reduce it by 40 per cent. because the yen has depreciated, and contrast it with the British wage, and not reduce that by 30 per cent., although the pound has depreciated. You must treat the two alike, and there is no reason for reducing the Japanese wages by 40 per cent. in order to make that comparison.

Major PROCTER: If you increased the Japanese operative's wage by 40 per cent. it would only mean that it would be 8s. a week and that is so low that it does not matter.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am coming to that. I am only anxious to get the thing on a proper footing. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a great mistake in weakening his case by putting it in such a way that any Japanese controversialist could give an immediate and unanswerable reply on a point of that kind. It is no good calculating the Japanese wages in gold and ours in sterling.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that Japanese wages are definitely very much lower than ours?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Of course, I do. I am coming to that. Secondly, it is sometimes represented that the Japanese money wage is the remuneration of the operative. Most of these Japanese workers are employed on the living-in system, and their total remuneration includes their food and their housing. That is sometimes not stated. It is as though we were to take the wages of a domestic servant in London and say she is receiving so many pounds a year, as if that were the payment for her services, omitting the fact that she also has board and lodging. With regard to currency depreciation again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Accrington (Major Procter) in a statement the other day said that Japan has an advantage because her currency has depreciated 40 per cent. He does not mention that British currency has depreciated 30 per cent.

Major PROCTER: It was 623 per cent. on the Gold Standard, and now it is 40 per cent. On sterling it has no effect.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. The yen
has depreciated from 24d, to 14d. That is 40 per cent.

Major PROCTER: On sterling.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I beg pardon. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is right on that point, but, in a general comparison we have to remember that our currency is depreciated by 30 per cent. and that has to be allowed for. When we complain bitterly that other countries are competing unfairly with us because their currency is depreciated, we must remember also that our currency is depreciated to some extent and, if that is regarded as illegitimate competition, we have to beware lest other countries which are now on the Gold Standard complain in somewhat the same degree. Still there is that great difference, and it is a most important factor in the position. In fact, there are three main factors which account for the sweeping success of the Japanese textile trade in competition not only with ours, but with that of other European countries. In the first place, wages are very much lower than ours. When all the factors are taken into account wages are still very much lower. That, however, is not the sole factor in the competition, nor even the main factor. For example, Lancashire, paying about twice as much wages as the Indian cotton mills pay, could easily compete against the Indian cotton mills if only there were no tariffs and there had been no boycott. Most Lancashire manufacturers would say that, given a fair and equal field, they could compete in price against the Indian cotton mills in spite of the great difference in wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think they often say that.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: It would be unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman's statement went out to India as a statement of fact. In certain qualities it is true that without tariffs Lancashire could beat India; but in coarse qualities India needs no tariffs to be able to compete with Lancashire.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I have often heard Lancashire manufacturers say they could, and the reason why they have been driven out of the market is mainly tariffs. If those tariffs had never been imposed, they could have held their trade, with the greater skill of the operatives, better management on the part of the manufacturers and better financing. Furthermore,
it must be remembered that in Japan, with the automatic looms that are employed to a very large extent, the labour cost is very much less, although, of course, they need to employ a larger number of operatives on the highly finished articles. Again the cost in Japan is to some extent offset by the very high cost of the mills themselves and the much dearer money which the manufacturers have to obtain for their business.
However, the fact remains that Japan has a considerable advantage from the lower standard of living of the workers. Secondly, there is the currency difference. There is this very considerable advantage which, even set off against our currency depreciation, is considerable in itself, and worst of all, this last year, no doubt by arrangement between the Japanese Government and the cotton industry before Japan went off the gold standard, the industry bought, it is stated, 300,000 bales of raw cotton with the yen at a gold value, and then manufactured the cotton and sold the manufactured products for paper yen. That fact accounts, more than anything else. for the extraordinary development during the year 1932. In fact, the investigators of this question say that the fall in prices in Japanese products in 1932 corresponds almost exactly to the fall in the value of Japanese currency in that year.
Thirdly, there is, of course, the question of organisation. The hon. Member who moved the Motion referred in terms of praise and approval to an article which appeared lately in the "Times," and which appears to me also to be a very thoughtful and able article, in the course of which the writer, who is anonymous, says:
The all powerful interest in Japanese progress is the immense driving power of its organisation and direction. This embraces complete knowledge of every requirement of the productive side of the industry, combined with instant contact with demand in all parts of the world, relating the one to the other in the manner hest suited to Japan. Absolute control is in the hands of the Japan Cotton Spinners' Association, which governs the industry's entire spindle-age and 60 per cent. of its export looms, and, by dominating the entire yarn output, has a scarcely less effective control of the independent looms.
That is a fact of enormous importance. Substantially the whole of the Japanese cotton industry is in six or seven hands, and the Cotton Manufacturers' Federa-
tion is immensely powerful and efficient. We were told at Banff, at the conference to which I have referred, by one of the very able Japanese delegates there, the method by which they obtain control, for example, in territories in Africa. The Japanese Cotton Federation representing the whole industry sends a highly skilled and highly salaried commercial agent to some particular country. He spends some time there and plans out a campaign of salesmanship for the whole of the area, acting on behalf of the whole Japanese cotton industry.

Mr. LEVY: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the very important factor of the long hours that the Japanese employs his workers.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to complete my argument. When this organiser has completed his work he is followed by a very large number of agents at lower salaries who carry out the plan of campaign which has been set before them by the first agent. In that way territory after territory is covered by a most efficient organisation of salesmanship, backed, of course, by the very low prices of the goods which are tendered, and the result is most successful from the Japanese point of view. Contrast that with the organisation, or lack of organisation, of the British cotton industry, with its literally thousands of people, wholly independent people, engaged in the trade—spinners, manufacturers, finishers, dealers and merchants. It is a conflict between highly efficient concentrated organisation and a loose mass of independent entities hardly worthy of the name of organisation at all.
This same organisation, apart from its salesmanship, has perfected the technique of the industry in a remarkable degree. There was a private report, drawn up by interests in Lancashire, which mentioned, among other things, that between 1926 and 1932 the production of cloth per operative in Japan had more than doubled. Within a period of six years, say these experts in the report, the output per person employed in that industry has doubled. In the presence of that fact these differences of wages sink almost in the background. As to the quality of the goods produced, there are differences of opinion, but no doubt the quality has been rapidly improving and is improving to-day. Further, there are
the long hours of labour and the practice of working two shifts per day. If you have two cotton mills, exactly the same in all respects, in equipment, in labour and everything else, but one of them is working two shifts, and they are producing the same amount of goods, one of them with two shifts and one with one shift, obviously the one working two shifts has only half the buildings, machinery, and running expenses of the mill, and half of most of the overhead costs, compared with the other. That one fact alone must make it impossible for the one mill working one shift to compete with the other which differs from it only in respect to the fact that it is working two shifts.
Those are the stark facts, and Lancashire and this House must face them. To quote again from the article to which I have referred, I would mention two other sentences, because they are fundamental to the whole of this discussion:
To counteract the fundamental advantage held by the Japanese—their direct drive and perfection of control—there is only one remedy: to emulate or surpass it.… There can be only one means of resuming our legitimate place in international trade—by concentrating on the reduction of costs to such levels as will assure ability to compete with the most efficient producers elsewhere.
Not by lowering the standard of living here, but in the long run, and permanently, there is no alternative to putting our industry on a competitive basis in quality, in price, and in salesmanship. The first thing to be done is to strengthen the trade associations in Lancashire and, to a greater extent, to unify the industry. After the conference at Banff we came to the conclusion, and the Japanese representatives, America, Australia, and all the various countries represented there agreed, that in matters such as these the important thing is to try to distinguish between methods of competition which are fair and those which will be generally regarded as unfair. If a country is beaten in trade by better organisation and better technique on the part of its rival it can only blame its own inefficiency, but if it is beaten by causes which may properly arouse resentment, then the matter stands on a completely different footing.
In this Japanese competition there are four points on which, I think, there is legitimate ground of complaint. The first is the unequal working conditions to which I have referred. Cheap labour does not always mean cheap production. No trade unionist would agree that it did. But if the working conditions are bad, if the hours are long and the remuneration is low, then other countries may complain, and rightly complain, that if they are compelled by that competition to lower the standards of life of their own people that is no advantage to civilisation or to the world. It is a detriment to the progress of mankind, and in Japan there is no doubt that the conditions are such as we should resent having to imitate here. think that British industry has been very short-sighted in not making more use of the International Labour Office and in realising the advantages of such a convention as the Washington Convention. British industry ought to have seized hold of that weapon and made. the utmost use of it, because our conditions are better than those of most other countries. We ought to try to get other countries up to our standard and endeavour to secure the enforcement of conventions in other countries of the world.
It so happens that, at Geneva 26 years ago, I had the privilege of signing on behalf of the Government of this country —I was then Under-Secretary at the Home Office—the first international convention ever signed regulating conditions of labour. It dealt with the night work of women and young children. It is that convention which, having recently been applied to Japan, has induced some little mitigation of the excessive hours of labour. It is a very small one, but it has, at all events, done something to bring Japanese conditions of labour towards a level with the more progressive countries. We should endeavour to make further use in every direction of that weapon. But we have a grievance so long as Japan does not sign these conventions and come up to European standards. Then the competition is in some degree unfair.
Secondly, the depreciation of currency is an illegitimate form of competition, and particularly the manipulation of currency which has enabled them to buy raw materials at gold prices at a certain moment, and to sell the commodity at
paper prices. Thirdly, shipping subsidies are a form of unfair competition. To draw funds from the taxpayers and devote them to a subsidy places the country which does it at a commercial advantage over other countries, and if every country did that all countries would be the poorer. It is a form of competition which should be generally condemned. Fourthly, a very obvious form of illegitimate competition is the imitation of British trade marks, designs, and labels, to which the Seconder referred in the course of his speech. I should like, in passing, to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will tell us whether this matter has been brought specially to the attention of the members of the British Consular service, and whether any steps are being taken to assist the British merchants in the troublesome and difficult business of suppressing that fraudulent practice.
These four elements are what may be termed unfair competition. They do not affect us only. They affect all European countries which are engaged in this trade. Anyone who has read the report of the International Cotton Committee at its meeting in Alsace last month will realise that the other countries concerned are also very much perturbed at the present situation. I should like to know whether His Majesty's Government in any action they are taking, contemplate any form of common action. I suggest that the right hon. Gentlemen should not wait until he gets agreement, but I should like to know whether it is contemplated to induce all other countries suffering in the same way from these four factors to make parallel representations.
The House to-day is waiting with much anxiety to know what action the Government are going to take. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade not to give us to-day a speech of complacency—of which he has given us many, one last week, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave us another yesterday—which arouses all our worst instincts. Speeches in that tone infuriate Lancashire, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say, that, "After all, things are very much better; it is true that our exports are worse this year than they were last but, at any rate, they are better than they were the year before, and therefore it is absurd to say that
there is reason for grave anxiety." The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said in a speech on October the 12th that:
We still feel anxious about the position in Lancashire,… but we are going to make a big effort to place that vastly important industry upon a satisfactory footing.
To-day we shall expect to hear from him just what form the big effort is to take. The Government are engaged in discussing the matter with those who are responsible in Japan. In Japan there are many able, far-sighted, efficient statesmen and they must look upon the situation of their country with great anxiety in connection with the general situation of the world. In regard to Manchuria, Japan has found herself in a position of diplomatic isolation. On armaments, she may find that she will be in some degree antagonising the moral opinion of a large part of the world, and if the various countries regard the Japanese as using methods of unfair competition in trade then she may find herself also in a position of economic isolation. We who have had long friendship with Japan and desire to maintain it, would view with deep regret any tendency further to increase that resentment in the world. It is rather an act of friendship than of anything in the nature of hostility that we should express well in advance the ideas which are growing in the public opinion of this country, for any general resentment against Japan or any country is greatly to be deprecated, in her interests, in the interests of ourselves, and in the interest of the peace and tranquillity of the world.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: It seems to be the fashion to justify one's intervention in the Debate. Previous speakers have told us that their justification is that they were born in Lancashire; others have said that they represent Lancashire. I was not born in Lancashire, but I was brought there in Lancashire cotton goods before I was two years of age. Furthermore, I have the honour to represent a Division of Lancashire which is mainly concerned with coal, but is partly concerned with cotton. It is sufficiently concerned with cotton to teach me that the cotton workers of Lancashire are suffering very much. Before dealing with the Motion I should like to call the attention of the President of the Board
of Trade to some of the remarks that are being made about him in the Lancashire Press. This Debate has done one thing: it has brought the President of the Board of Trade into prominence in Lancashire. In the "Daily Dispatch" of yesterday I noticed an article with very big headlines—
We win the first round.
The article proceeds to say that—
The Government are going to accept the Motion on Japanese competition which will be moved in the House of Commons to-morrow afternoon.
There is further reference to-day in the same newspaper. It says:
The fact that the Government will accept Captain Fuller's Motion, which means that they will be prepared to take action if the pending Anglo-Japanese negotiations fail, will not diminish the vigour with which the case of the cotton industry will be presented. In some quarters there is a suspicion that the Government, under the terms of the Motion, may not be committing themselves to more than a pious expression of good intentions.
The leading article in the same newspaper also makes mention of the right hon. Gentleman. It is just as well that the President of the Board of Trade should know what Lancashire is saying about him. The leader says:
We sincerely hope that Mr. Runciman himself, to say nothing of his colleagues in the Cabinet, will have acquired a more decisive outlook by the time he has heard the arguments of the Lancashire speakers this afternoon. It is Mr. Runciman who is the Minister responsible for action or inaction, for enterprise or complacency. So far he has given the impression of complacency, of a wait-and-see attitude; and this despite the fact that the gravity of the situation has been set before him from the moment he took office, and was made public long before that. It is his duty to defend and explain his attitude—an attitude inexplicable to the unemployed operatives of Lancashire.
I thought it my duty to let the President of the Board of Trade know what is being said about him in Lancashire, so that he may be ready with his reply to the remarks that are being made. Those remarks are not made by the "Daily Herald" but by the "Daily Dispatch.'
The Resolution does two things. It states what is taking place now and what ought to take place in the future. I agree with the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that it is of vital importance to view this question in
its proper perspective. The Motion deals with rather more than we expected, having regard to the Notice of Motion that was given. We thought that it would have been confined to the cotton industry, but it has been widened, I will not say worsened. In the widening the Motion refers also to the whole of the trade between this country and Japan. It is an important fact that in the provisional figures for last year we still have a favourable balance of trade with Japan. Our imports from Japan last month were valued at 139,000,000 yen, whereas the exports to Japan were valued at 170,000,000 yen. When we find a favourable balance of trade with another country we feel proud of ourselves, but when we have an adverse balance we become agitated. It is well for those who are supporting the Motion to realise that we must not pursue a policy which may endanger our trade balance with Japan, and therefore I have thought it wise to call attention to the fact that last month, whatever may happen in the future, we had a favourable balance of trade with Japan.
When we take the textile exports I find, taking my figures from a reliable Conservative source, the Daily Dispatch, that our exports of textiles in 1923 were 3,866,000,000 square yards, whereas Japan in the same year exported 1,418,000,000 square yards. We have to compare those figures with 1932, when Great Britain exported 2,198,000,000 square yards, and Japan 2,031,000,000 square yards. What has happened in those nine years is that British exports have declined by 1,668,000,000 square yards, and Japanese exports have increased by 613,000,000 square yards, leaving a difference of over 1,000,000,000 square yards which we have lost and which have gone elsewhere. We have lost in the nine years 1,600,000,000 square yards and Japan has gained in those nine years 613,000,000 square yards. Therefore, we have to account for some other country taking away 1,000,000,000 square yards from us. If we had restored to us the amount of textile trade taken by Japan from us in the last nine years we should still be 1,000,000,000 square yards less than we were in our exports of 1923.
I am not pretending that the position is not serious. It certainly is very serious, but I agree with other speakers that the reasons for the success of Japanese competition are well known—
lower wages, working conditions not as good as here, trade efficiency, better marketing, better buying and better selling. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) referred to a speech which I thought merited the compliment which was paid to it by the President of the Board of Trade, namely the speech by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) who dealt with a number of causes of the Japanese success and gave as one reason, and a very powerful one, that they have by far the best organisation in the world, pointing out that 70 per cent. of the raw cotton is imported by three firms, and so on.
The Japanese representatives themselves have something to say about this matter. I hope that every hon. Member will accept the testimony of the Japanese on the question. Speaking on the 16th October at a meeting of the International Cotton Committee on the Continent, the Japanese representative, Mr. Okada said:
On the question of low prices the conditions in Japan were very different from those obtaining in Europe. The reasons Japan was able to produce at a lower cost were many. The perfect oganisation, good management, the system of buying raw materials and selling the manufactured products, and more intensive efforts made in rationalisation, improvement of efficiency, and various other means combined to bring about the low cost. But is not right to maintain that if wages were low the goods were produced cheaply.
We know the cause of the Japanese menace and we have to ask ourselves the question, are the British people themselves in any degree responsible for that menace? I put a question to-day in good faith to the President of the Board of Trade and it was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. I wished to ascertain to what extent British money is invested in the textile industry in Japan. I am told, unofficially, that British money is very heavily invested there. The answer that I received, although precise figures cannot be given, was that it was small. I accept that answer. If, however, there is any British money invested in Japanese textiles those investors are not helping the President of the Board of Trade to deal with this very difficult situation. Surely British money, British machinery and British engineering skill ought not to be used in Japan to the extent we are told it is being used to defeat the cotton industry of Lancashire. I was rather sur-
prised at a statement by the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury), who told us that British manufacturers were pushing Japanese textile products. He said:
Merchants in Manchester are to-day buying Japanese and Russian prints and sell-mg them, through Hamburg, to our Crown Colonies and overseas Dominions.
He went on to say:
I do not blame them. They are doing it because they cannot get the stuff at home at a price which those markets will pay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1933; col. 295, Vol. 283.]
At the last election my Division was placarded by my opponent with the words: "Buy British." That placard carried weight, but it failed to keep me from coming to this House. When we are told by an hon. and gallant Member of this House that the merchants of Manchester are going out of their way to push Japanese cotton goods—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then let me read what the hon. and gallant Member said. If it is nonsense I would point out that the nonsense has been stated by one of the colleagues of hon. Members who are interrupting me. He said:
Merchants in Manchester are to-day buying Japanese and Russian prints, and selling them, through Hamburg, to our Crown Colonies and Overseas Dominions.
If hon. Members take exception to my words, "going out of their way," let me say that I know they are forced to do it. What happens? A trader in Lancashire has his shop full of Lancashire cotton goods. His customers are so impoverished that they are unable to buy those goods. If he cannot place something before them which is cheaper and within reach of his customers, then he must close his shop. He has no choice, and rather than close his shop he takes in these cheap Japanese goods. I am not blaming the trader. I agree that he has to live. But will hon. Members tell me that the Japanese have not to live? If we agree that the Japanese have to live, then the Japanese can come forward and make the argument that they have to live. The point is that if anyone in this country is making it difficult for the Lancashire cotton industry this comprehensive Motion intends that the Government shall deal with him. It means that no Britisher will be allowed to do anything which handicaps the cotton industry. Does anyone suggest that the pushing of
Japanese goods is not a handicap to the cotton trade? No one, I believe, will object to it being dealt with drastically.
The Socialist party would not deal with the position in the same way as the Government because our conception of the position differs from theirs. The position in the cotton industry, like that in the coal industry, is the outcome of the present economic system. The Government do not agree. But that is our contention and, therefore, our remedy is different. We say that there should be no Government action until the industry has reorganised itself. If individualism is rampant anywhere it is rampant in the cotton trade. My hon. Friend has referred to the divisions and jealousies which exist, but every employer, I am sure, will admit that a certain amount of unification and co-ordination must precede prosperity. When an industry has done all that it can do to put its house in order, and has failed, then the Government should assist it.
The policy outlined in the Motion is not the best policy and will not make for any real prosperity in the industry. We agree that the Japanese menace must be dealt with, but we think it must be met in a different way from that suggested in the Motion. The hon. Member for Accrington (Major Procter) seemed to fear that the negotiations with Japan might succeed, that the President of the Board of Trade might secure an agreement. Speaking for myself, and I think for the Socialist party, I should be pleased if it were found possible to allocate the cotton markets of the world in such a way that Lancashire would know her future, but when that has been done it will be essential for the cotton industry to have stability and certainty of work, and to get that you must get far better relations between employers and workers. Agreements must not be dishonoured. I agree that they are dishonoured only by those outside the federation, and that employers inside the federation do their best to get every employer into the agreement. But they are not always honoured; and it inevitably produces ill-feeling on the part of the workers.
Co-operation and good will are essential in this industry, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade might exercise his good offices
along the line of making it compulsory on all employers to honour agreements made between the two sides. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spencer) who is an expert at ineffective interruptions, referred to the Labour party and its policy for dealing with this problem. Of course it is not the policy of the Government. If you have a thorough reorganisation of an industry and it then finds it difficult to carry on in the face of international opposition, then the Government must take action. That is our policy; it has been explained in this House before. It is a policy of import boards, of the regulation of exports and imports. That policy is not accepted by the Government, but until it is put into operation we shall not deal with this or any other exporting industry in the way that it should be dealt with. On the question of the lack of good will and the refusal to honour agreements, let me quote the opinion of one who is not a Socialist. In the "Stock Exchange Gazette" of 24th November, 1933, there was an article on the cotton trade, in which it was said:
The more-looms agreement proved to be a failure because so many manufacturers taking advantage of the unhappy surplus of labour, and its tendency to work at any price, filled to comply with the agreement either in spirit or letter. Admittedly these firms were mainly non-federated concerns, but the low wages they have paid have led to serious internal competition. Mr. Grey, on behalf of the Masters organisation, has made strong appeals for universal support of the agreement, but the net result has been that the operatives' leaders have been unwilling to proceed any further without a guarantee that the manufacturers would hold to existing agreements.
No one will suggest the the leaders of the operatives are asking too much when they ask that agreements should be honoured. We in the coal trade have our agreements, but we have never had any difficulty in getting the coal owners to honour agreements when made, and I would ask the President of the Board of Trade, therefore, to use his influence to see that agreements in the cotton industry are honoured. Lancashire is a very important part of Great Britain. Its condition at present, owing to the state of the cotton industry, the coal trade and the iron and steel industry, is deplorable; it is a condition which no Member of this House would like to continue for a moment longer than is neces-
nary. In the evidence submitted to the Joint Select Committee on Indian Reform there are some words which correctly summarise our views of this matter:
Of the total population of Great Britain more than one-tenth reside in Lancashire. Of these, a high percentage are directly employed in the cotton trade, and a still further number, such as those engaged in packing, transport, distribution in its various phases, coal mining and engineering, and so on, are indirectly dependent on the prosperity of the cotton industry. Any further serious diminution, much less a cessation in exports to India, would strike a vital blow at employment with consequences of the gravest character. The well-being of Lancashire is an essential element in the economic structure of Great Britain as a whole, and quite apart from the human suffering of those dependent upon the cotton industry, there can be no question that a further intensification of unemployment in the North West of England would entail calamitous results for the nation at large.
Hence we gladly support the terms of the Motion.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. NALL-CAIN: I cannot remember a Debate in which such a national and county spirit has been shown. Speakers in all parts of the House have contributed in no party spirit, showing plainly to the Government and to the President of the Board of Trade the gravity of the situation as it presents itself to hon. Members from Lancashire. I want to voice the feeling of what, I think, is the most important part of Lancashire, the City of Liverpool. I know it is not usually voiced in cotton Debates, but Liverpool is dependent on the prosperity of Lancashire and on the prosperity of the cotton industry. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) may regard the City of Liverpool as the capital of Wales, but that is not the case, and I think it necessary that the opinion of Liverpool should be heard in this Debate. No one is more competent to carry through an agreement than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and if an agreement is carried through I am sure that he will not lose sight of shipping, on which Liverpool depends. Liverpool is the largest raw cotton market in the world, and lately it has been having a very bad time indeed.
I have fought two elections in Liverpool, and the chief theme in each was to
keep up the standard of living. We have heard something about the Japanese standard of living. The Japanese are on what may be called a rice standard. We are proud of our standards of living, and it is up to the Government to maintain and improve them. 1 agree with almost everything that has been said this afternoon, and I am sure that the President and the Parliamentary Secretary will not fail to use. any measures in their power to improve the position of the cotton trade. We hope that the negotiations which are proceeding will be successful. At the same time, there are many Members [...] this House, and many people outside, who do not like the spectacle of Great Britain negotiating with a foreign country over her colonial markets, or over her home markets. Those people who Founded the Empire visualised trade between Great Britain and the Empire, and, therefore, in these negotiations I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary will take any steps that are necessary, tariffs or quotas or anything else, to do the best for the trade of Lancashire and for Great Britain as a whole.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. FIELDEN: I have avoided taking any part in previous Debates on the cotton trade because I wished to learn the opinions of those directly connected with the running of this great industry as to the proper methods for meeting conditions which are accepted by everybody as disastrous. We have not had these opinions yet, but a committee has recently returned from a visit to India and is now in touch with a committee in Manchester, and there is no doubt that when these views have been considered we shall hear the opinions of the leaders of the industry. I rather deprecate these discussions until we know what it is that that Lancashire wants. Personally, I am as much in the dark on that subject as any other Member of this House, but I venture, with the indulgence of the House, to intervene in this Debate for a short time, as I belong to a family connected with cotton spinning and manufacturing for 150 years, and I have been personally connected with the industry for 40 years.
It has been said on many occasions that the reason why Lancashire cannot keep
her position in the cotton markets of the world is that her machinery is out of date and that her equipment is wrong. I can only say as a manufacturer and spinner that I believe that statement to be entirely incorect. In the case of the undertaking with which I am connected, our machinery might be described as old. It is not new, but every new invention that has come out in the last 30 years has been carefully considered by us. Where we think that such an invention would be of advantage, it has been introduced and our only consideration in reference to the subject of machinery is: "Will the new machinery reduce the costs of production and at the same time not let down the quality of the cloth?" It is extraordinary how little new machinery and how few inventions have been found by us after experiment to be really helpful, and I believe that our costs of production are quite as low as those of our competitors.
The cotton trade, as the House knows, is composed of many different parts concerned with the production of many different sorts of cloth and yarn, and I only speak of what I know personally, but I am certain that in the district in which my firm carries on business all the other manufacturers have viewed the subject in the same light as us, and are quite prepared to scrap old machinery and put in new machinery if they are satisfied that the new machinery will reduce costs without lowering quality. We have machinists in Lancashire who are still second to none and they have equipped, not only the Lancashire mills but also the Indian mills. I do not know what the Japanese do at the present time in that respect, but, undoubtedly, a few years ago an enormous amount of Lancashire cotton spinning machinery went to Japan. Therefore, in considering our competition with India and Japan it should be remembered that the equipment of the industry in the three countries comes from practically the same source.
Where we suffer is in the difference of wages. The lower wages in India and Japan do not produce the same efficiency as the higher wages in Lancashire, but, undoubtedly, there is a saving in costs by the payment of the lower wages in those two countries. It is interesting, however, to consider that although the machinery
of the industry in the three countries comes from the same source and although the wages in this country are higher than the wages in India or Japan, yet it is necessary in India—apart from the question of employment—in order that Indian manufacturers may continue to produce, to put on a heavy duty against Lancashire cloth. At the same time Japan, with machinery from the same source and with wages lower, I believe, than the wages in India, is able to undersell both this country and India, not only in India but in all the markets of the world.
The question that has to be solved is: What is the secret of this success in the production of cotton cloth in Japan? I am not in a position to inform the House what that secret is. We can only make a surmise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) spoke of the organisation of the industry in Japan and of the way in which they had been able to buy, I think he said 300,000 bales of cotton, though I am told it was probably more like 3,000,000 bales. It is reputed that Japan two years ago bought enormous quantities of American cotton at the bottom of the market. Then Japan went off gold and the yen depreciated and she was in an extraordinarily advantageous position to sell her goods in competition with any other producers. Japanese are an extremely clever and able people. They wanted an outlet for their production. They had no markets of their own such as we had acquired through many years and therefore they had to push themselves into foreign markets. They knew the value of a market once they got it. They knew the difficulty of getting into a market where they were not established, and being clever business people they took, as I believe, the opportunity of having the production of their mills at an extremely low level of cost owing to the successful buying of cotton and the depreciation of the yen as well. I believe they used that opportunity to force their way into the foreign markets. That is only supposition on my part, but if it was not for some reason like that, I cannot understand how Japan could possibly produce the cloth which she does produce, knowing the cost of the cotton which she has to buy and which she uses in that production. I suggest that it is
possible that Japan, in order to obtain a footing in those markets, has been selling her cloth at something less than it has cost her to produce it. As I say, that is only supposition but I do not see how otherwise she could produce cloth at the price at which she puts it on the market.
The cotton trade of Lancashire is an old-established trade, built up year by year. We find it to-day organised in a certain way. It may be that that organisation is out of date. It may be that we must follow on the lines of Japan by having large units which can buy the raw material, manufacture it, finish it, bleach it, dye it, and ship it to the markets of the world. That may be a solution, but I would like very much to hear the opinion of those experts in the trade who are now sitting in Manchester considering this subjecct. If they come to the conclusion that we must scrap our present system and start on new lines we shall have to face a great upheaval in the trade, but the interests of the people, the interests of Lancashire, are such that I am certain, if we are convinced that that prospect has to be faced, we have sufficient courage, sufficient brains and driving power to face it and to come through our difficulties. If we do so, I am certain there is still, if not as big a trade as formerly, a very big trade for the Lancashire cotton spinning in the future.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. CROSS: I intervene only for the purpose of pleading, with the greatest possible brevity, that special Consideration might be given to one factor which at the present time is, I believe, undermining the competitive efficiency of the cotton trade. I refer to the undercutting of wages. There are instances of it in my own Division and I believe that other hon. Members will know of instances in their Divisions. In my case we are losing a large trade to a neighbouring area simply and solely because in that neighbouring area less favourable conditions of labour obtain. Owing to the decline in trade and consequent unemployment, operatives are at the present time ready to accept lower rates of wages and to give way in matters of overtime, double shifts and so forth. That is not because they regard it as a fair deal but because any wages are regarded as better than insur-
ante benefit and transitional payments. In this way the efficiency of good firms is being reduced without providing any corresponding benefits in other sections of the trade.
We must all realise that variations in wages from time to time are inevitable, variations upward in good times and variations downward in bad times, but this is an entirely different thing. There could be nothing more deplorable, socially and industrially, than that the firm which gets the orders should be the firm which is most successful in imposing inferior labour conditions upon its people. And, furthermore, there can be no doubt that in certain cases it is simply a means of compensating for inefficiency of management. I believe that at the present time there is a real desire throughout the whole of the industry that wage agreements which have been arrived at by the representative organisations should be made effective. If these wage rates could be made effective, there would be some advantages in addition to the removal of the evils which I have already outlined. To begin with, it would be a first step in the reorganisation of the industry which many observers have held to be so necessary. Further, it would be a first point of cohesion in which, if the experience of other industries is any guide, we might expect that further steps of reorganisation would be taken; and any such reorganisation has all the advantages of natural growth over the ready-made schemes which otherwise, sooner or later, will probably be clapped on to the industry, fitting possibly at some points and inevitably misfitting at a very large number of others.
I believe the Government will find on investigation that there is a real desire throughout the industry that these wage agreements should be made effective in every quarter; and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he can give us any assurance that if there was an expression to him by the representative organisations of a joint desire that these wage agreement should be made effective he would give them sympathetic consideration. I hope that I may also ask that my right hon. Friend will be willing at all events not to close his mind to the idea of introducing legislation for this purpose. I am no lover of Government intervention in industry, and indeed in
asking for anything of the kind I would plead that the Government should approach the matter very tentatively: with that instinctive caution which will enable them to steer between helping and interfering. I should like to add, in conclusion, that I believe that if my right hon. Friend could give any such assurance as that for which I have asked, it would be a very great and real encouragement to all the best elements in the industry: those who are most anxious to play a worthy part in world cotton production.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The problem of Japanese cotton production month by month bulks larger in the minds and lives of the people, and I think everybody here must congratulate the hon. Member for Ardwick (Captain Fuller) on using his good fortune in the ballot in choosing this subject to-day. Japanese competition is a matter bristling with difficulties and complexities: a maze from which no easy egress is visible or even possible, but a way out of which must be found. We should be lacking in common sense if we failed to appreciate the difficulties as we should be in statesmanship if we were not determined to find a solution. Concerning the character and magnitude of Japanese competition, it is unnecessary for me to say anything. The facts have been explained adequately, not only in this Debate but in previous Debates. It is ruthless and devastating in its character. In the past, empires have been built up by the sword. Present day commerce is a no less potent instrument. At the forefront of what I should like to describe as the army of economic penetration, the spearhead, as it were, of this advance by Japan, is the ability of Japan to put into the markets of the world cotton goods at prices which are, in fact, unprecedented. The simple fact that for the first time in the history of the world Japan is now exporting more cotton goods than are exported from Lancashire tells its own tale.
It is desirable to examine where these cotton goods are being sold. The latest figures which are available to me are the figures for last year, but I believe the figures for this year will be even more interesting. Taking last year's figures, in India Japan sold 650,000,000 yards; in
the rest of the British Empire, 400,000,000 yards; in Egypt 200,000,000 yards. The House will observe that 60 per cent. of these external sales were in markets which, if not controlled by us, are markets over which we have some influence. If you add to these markets the markets of the Dutch East Indies where the sales were 350,000,000 yards, and bear in mind the fact that Holland would be very willing to co-operate with us in any measure touching Japanese competition, we come to the conclusion that 80 per cent. of the external market of Japan for cotton goods is of a character which might be described from the Japanese point of view as being vulnerable.
The purchasing power of the British Empire is the highway along which this army of economic penetration is marching. A conception which, I think, is common to nearly all Members of this House, the conception of the direction in which the future prosperity not only of this country but of the whole Empire lies, is one which is very frequently put into the words Imperial Economic Co-operation. We believe, as a Parliament, that if we are to maintain our position in the world and to maintain our stability, we can only do so by linking the Mother country and the outlying parts of the Empire by economic ties, by ties of self-interest. The most prominent factor in that policy has been the agreements arrived at Ottawa. But while we are tying the ties and strengthening the bonds of Empire at Ottawa, they are being weakened, lessened and destroyed at Tokyo. Japanese policy is a policy of capturing our Empire markets. The present industrial policy of Japan and the economic security of the British Empire are incompatible. I use these words in no spirit of hostility. I am trying to state what I believe to be, and what I believe the House will recognise as, mere economic facts. The standard of life in the East and the standard of life in the West, are rill a contrast which has been demonstrated quite clearly. Conditions which in this country we should describe as intolerable are in Japan not only bearable but even pleasant. What does concern us is the overwhelming fact that Japanese goods are driving our goods out of Empire markets and driving our men on to the streets. And this seems to me to point to one clear conclusion—that there should be a
fundamental change in the conditions under which Japanese goods are admitted to the Empire markets.
I should like to remind the House that in the past, when Japan was building up her country and developing her industries, she found it necessary to protect her markets and to protect those markets over which she had control. As long ago as 1911, when the Anglo-Japanese Treaty was signed, you will find the Schedule of that Treaty laid down the terms of duty on British cotton goods; terms which on certain classes of goods were of such a character as to be in fact prohibitive. When Japan obtained control of Korea, she practically made that market a closed market to external goods. We made no protest. In 1928, Japan prohibited the importation of rice from India. As recently as last year, Japan increased her duties on the importation of pig-iron from India to such an extent as to be prohibitive. Another example is in connection with the tobacco trade. Although many firms were well established in Japan in the tobacco trade, yet Japan carried through an Act making the tobacco business a State monopoly. That was done, not only in Japan itself, but in Formosa. I bring these examples to the notice of the House in order to make this point, that during all this time when these developments were taking place, we in this country never looked upon those actions as requiring any recrimination from us. Therefore, I think Japan will have, and can have, no cause to complain if we in fact find it necessary, in the economic circumstances which supervene, to take a leaf out of her book. The point before the British Government and the British people is: How, can these changed conditions of entry by Japan into the Empire markets, most effectively he brought about?
No reasonable individual will object to negotiations in the first instance. No reasonable person will seriously contend that to bring in industrialists who are particularly affected by what is a very complicated matter of trade negotiations is not a wise policy. Therefore, there could be no cavilling at the Government's decision, when the textile mission recently went to India, that an opportunity should be taken for the members of that mission to engage in tripartite discussions, not only with the Indian industrialists but with the industrialists of Japan, with a
view to reviewing the whole situation as far as they were entitled or empowered to do so, and to see what could be done in respect of the Indian market and the external markets with which India was concerned.
I was a member of that mission as the House knows. I think that mission did very valuable work for Lancashire in obtaining a better atmosphere, an atmosphere in which it is now possible to look forward to the future with some hope of increasing the volume of Lancashire trade with India; yet in respect to our negotiations with the Japanese textile industrialists, very little progress was made. The question of examining the external markets of India was not even raised, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will probably be aware that although it was suggested in this House that we might be able to discuss, say, a market like Ceylon, such discussions have never, in fact, been held. The Japanese textile industrialists appeared to be very restricted in their powers, and we felt that we were fortunate in being able to obtain the limited agreement that we did obtain. The only conclusion we could come to on those negotiations in respect of the textile industry was that the responsibility lay with the Government, and that only the Government could decide. While we were away during those four months the situation, so far as Lancashire was concerned, went from bad to worse, and those who are closely associated with the industry feel that, if there is much further delay as to what is the proper procedure or the proper prescription, the patient will be dead.
The main obstacle to any rapid method of dealing with the problem is, of course, the Anglo-Japanese Treaty. Some 12 mouths ago I pressed the President of the Board of Trade to denounce that Treaty. Nothing that has happened since that time makes me inclined to change that view. One fact stands out as a lighthouse, and it is that time is working in favour of the Japanese and that time is working against us. It is essential that our negotiators should be reinforced by the knowledge that if the negotiations fail, the Government will be free to act, otherwise there will exist during the whole of these negotiations a constant incentive to delay. My view, which is a
purely personal view, is that this Treaty will have to be denounced sooner or later, and it seems to me that to denounce it purely as a matter of form, in circumstances, I mean, in which there is no crisis, would probably be better than being driven to denounce the Treaty under circumstances which might be very critical, if negotiations were not going satisfactorily. I put that forward as a personal view.
We must not be blind to the present mood of the Japanese. They have made such progress in their export trade during a time when all other nations are finding their export trade depressed, that they may be said to be in a state of industrial auto-intoxication. They quite genuinely believe that their organisation, their perseverance, and what they describe as their honest, hard work are factors which will lead them a long way ahead in the race for world trade. For my part, I discount to a great extent some of the remarks which have found expression in this House in respect of more organisation. I believe that without a practically endless supply of docile, cheap, efficient, female labour, accustomed by tradition to handling textiles, and inspired by a philosophy which premises the requirement of a minimum amount of material wants, Japan would not have made the progress that she is making.
The right hen. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) talks a great deal about organisation, bulk buying, and so on, and various arguments of that kind run frequently through these Debates. It is true that those facilities give an advantage to a new country which is prepared to supply bulk lines to a world which has a low purchasing power; but the time must come when the world will have a higher purchasing power, and it will then demand variety. The attributes of taste and variety in materials will come into demand, and then the organisation which exists in Lancashire will come into its own. I think the arguments in connection with organisation are very frequently over-stressed, and the proof of my contention can most clearly be given by the simple fact that the Japanese have bought a mill in India. If their organisation were so good and effective, you would find that that mill was doing wonderfully well, but in point of fact it is not doing anything like as well as many
of the Indian mills. The mill I refer to is in Bombay. Its record proves that, without this supply of cheap, docile labour, under conditions that are quite satisfactory to that labour, Japan would not be making this progress.
I am aware that by denouncing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty we shall not completely unravel all this tangled skein or remove the obstacles in the way of dealing with the problem, but we shall certainly cut the Gordian knot. In the next few days the industrial negotiations will be commenced, and it is perhaps inadvisable to say too much, but there are three points that I would like to emphasise. First of all, and most important, no solution of this problem which merely dealt with the question of quantity, no solution which imposed some mere volume control, would be satisfactory. That volume control must be combined with some factors which will maintain prices in various markets. Quite clearly, if you have 100 bales of piece goods to sell at a low price, the price of those 100 bales controls the price of 1,000 other bales, and it would not be satisfactory to find that, although the quantity was restricted, the price at which they could be imported into the foreign market was to be still lower. That brings me to the point that it is necessary to introduce some compensating factor to deal with the problem of yen depreciation.
The second point is the question of artificial silk. It would be unsatisfactory if the cotton position were to be dealt with and a loophole left whereby the Japanese could substitute artificial silk textiles for cotton textiles. The problem is essentially one, and quite clearly it would be almost childish for the textile negotiators to enter into the negotiations, to deal with the general textile position, if there was a great loophole of artificial silk left uncovered. The third point is that there is no necessity, in my view, to wait for the beginning of these negotiations until the end of the present Indo-Japanese negotiations which are taking place in Delhi. I see no reason at all why they should not begin forthwith. There must be a great deal of preliminary work, and the sooner they are got on with the better, from our point of view.
I do not believe we shall do a great deal of good to Lancashire by attempting
to bully the Government. The Government can be of the greatest help to the Lancashire cotton trade by working and acting resolutely behind the scenes. I would like to pay a tribute to the great help that the Government gave to the textile mission to India at all points. The mission was supported by the good will and active assistance of the Government, and it is only right and proper that that tribute should be paid. I should also like to appreciate the fact that the President of the Board of Trade takes a very great interest in this matter, and his presence here this afternoon is a symbol of that fact. It is by obtaining a firm and resolute Government background and the knowledge that the Government are determined to act that Lancashire will get the greatest help.
Lancashire can do its part. Many Members have spoken about the necessity for a greater use of Indian cotton, and I saw in the papers to-day that in India certain suggestions have been put forward that Lancashire's intentions to use greater quantities of Indian cotton are mere pious platitudes." I can assure the House that that is not the case. Lancashire has been using, and is determined to use, more Indian cotton. These intentions of Lancashire to use more Indian cotton are practical intentions, committees are now sitting, and these intentions are to be carried out. My final word is that this Japanese competition affects every trade, every class and every section of the community. Through trials and tribulations, civilisation in the West has won through to our present. standard of living. We look to the Government to make it plain that what we have, we hold.

6.59 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The time at our disposal is all too short for a full discussion of this very important subject, and if some other opportunity were to arise a little later in the Session, I think we might very well return to the subject and thrash it out from our various points of view and with a degree of knowledge which I hope will increase as the months go by. Meanwhile, I would say how useful it is that in the course of this Debate we should have heard two such speeches as we have heard in the last half-hour, one from a veteran of the House, one of the old guard of the cotton industry, who
still shows the same courage and virility that characterised him in early life, and the other from one of the younger generation, fresh from his travels in India and with a knowledge of the negotiations there which is unrivalled by any other Member of the House. It is easy to describe the growth of the Japanese cotton industry. It is equally easy to describe the effect that that competition has had upon the Lancashire cotton trade. We are all pretty well alive to the dangers of things growing worse rather than better, but I hope that the House does not imagine that, because we do not debate this subject every day in the week, we are therefore neglecting any aspect of it or anything that can be done by Government Departments either here or in any other part of the Empire.
I have for a long time past been kept very fully informed in detail of the position in Lancashire, and with the fall in the sales of Lancashire goods in various parts of the world and even within our own Empire. I have been well alive to that fact. It became necessary for the Government last year to decide what they thought was the best and most effectual way in which we could approach these problems. I said, the last time we debated this subject in the House, that I favoured the attempt being made by the industries themselves in the first place to provide solutions of these very difficult and complex subjects. I think that we have been justified by what has happened in India. During the last four months Sir William Clare Lees went with my hon. Friend and his colleagues to India; they were given every opportunity of seeing whatever was open to the Englishman to see in India; they were able to confer on a footing of friendliness and candour with the heads of the Indian cotton industry. Do not let us under-estimate the value of those conversations. India has been one of the markets on which Lancashire has depended in the past for a great deal of her prosperity, and the fall in the import of English cotton cloth and materials into India during the last few years is one of the gravest problems that Lancashire has faced. If that is so, it has been well worth bringing the industrialists—men of knowledge, men who knew what they were talking about and were not easily satisfied—into close touch with the actual facts of the markets of the East.
That was one of the first advantages of that delegation that went to India.
Then we have had to deal in India with two very difficult factors outside the cotton organisation. One was the low standard of living of the Indian operatives who provided the Indian cotton mills with their chief form of production; and the other was the political spirit which until this year appears to have been so bad as grievously to interfere with the prospects of the expansion of British industry in India. Now, thank goodness, the boycott is over, and we are able now to regain some portions of the market which we lost during the boycott. Very fortunately the reception of the industrialists who went out to India was so generous and sympathetic that they were able to arrive at an agreement with the Indian representatives. We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Mody and his friends for the way in which he met the Lancashire representatives and for the arrangement which was made with his help.
There are other parts of the world, however, where it is not so easy to deal with the situation. Even in India itself we have not disposed of the whole problem by making arrangements as between our producers and theirs. Japan has been a very large importer into India, and the imports have been going up from year to year. The Indian Government are very well alive to these facts, and they are already in close conversation with the representatives of Japan at Simla. Whether the conversations will have been concluded or not in the immediate future I cannot prophesy, but at all events they have been pressed on with as much facility as possible in the circumstances. If there is any delay in the conversations here it is not the fault of this Government. We have acted promptly in every respect, and if there is delay we must say that the explanation is to be found elsewhere.
We cannot get away from the fact that the problems of Lancashire to-day are not purely economic and are not purely industrial. There is no doubt that the whole history of the cotton industry provides us with a good many reasons for shaking our heads. What happened after the War—the inflation of values there and the amount of speculation that took
place—did not do the cotton industry very much good. Do not let us altogether misinterpret what happened owing to the over-capitalisation of these concerns; it added to their standing charges, with more inflation of their ordinary shares, preference shares and debenture shares. Do not let us exaggerate that. Nevertheless, it left a very nasty taste in the mouths of investors, and it has not made it easy to bring back capital into the Lancashire cotton trade at a time when it certainly sorely needed re-equipment. I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) with regard to the lack of organisation in Lancashire. It may be that the organisation of the Lancashire cotton trade is difficult to understand, but it none the less exists. As my hon. Friend below the Gangway pointed out to us, as the opportunity offers there is an organisation, and a complete network of organisations, in Lancashire which are prepared for the requirements of trade in various parts of the world.

Sir J. NALL: Ever in Darwen.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend is prepared to admit that.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not know what it means.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is unfortunately one of the very great problems with which so many people who talk of "planning" are faced. They do not know what it means. Do not, however, let us take an entirely jocular view of the value of these organisations. Do not imagine that all is well in Lancashire. There is a great deal that ought to be organised there, as anyone can see who has made a survey of the Lancashire cotton industry. My hon. Friend behind me pointed out a very short time ago how far we were from complete organisation even as regards wages and hours in Lancashire. The last arrangement that was made there was largely the work of the best of our civil servants, whose name I am proud to mention in this House—Mr. Leggett. Very largely owing to his efforts, arrangements were made between employers and employés which reflected much credit on both sides. Unfortunately, however, some individuals have gone behind these arrangements. My hon. Friend asks me if anything can be done to bring them to book. I do not wish to say anything
on that subject this afternoon; I would rather leave it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. But I can promise that, if any representation comes from those affected in Lancashire both employers and employed, they will receive sympathetic consideration by my right hon. colleague.
The hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke for the Labour party asked me whether more could not be done through the International Labour Office, and I think the same point was raised by the right hon. Member for Darwen. I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was on the initiative of the British Government that the necessity of providing protection for wages was coupled with the question of reducing working hours at the last International Labour Conference. It was also indicated that the Government would do everything in their power to co-operate with the International Labour Office with regard to wage standards throughout the world. That is still our policy, and we shall certainly be ready to cement what was done in the past and to repeat it in the future. Do not let us run away with the idea that it is possible to go to the International Labour Office and to get them to solve the Japanese wage question. We should be going a very long way from the truth if we thought that all we had to do was to go to Geneva and make representations in the appropriate office, and we should at once induce the Japanese to come to an agreement with us and other industrial countries in the world. I am all for using the International Labour Office to the full, but we cannot expect it to bring about a revolution in the attitude of the Japanese towards the great economic problems of the world.
While I am dealing with these various points, I must say something in passing about that form of unfair competition which is based. on the infringement of designs and trade marks. This is a matter which gives us a good deal of trouble, not in this country so much as elsewhere. In this country, the machinery for dealing with the infringement of trade marks or copyright and designs is fairly complete; at all events the legislation is there and the courts can deal with the cases as they arise. There are always some which crop up every year. I do not remember how many have been dealt with this year already, but the machinery is
quite efficient. What about other countries? Unfortunately, we have found that even in some portions of the British Empire goods appear to have been imported direct from Japan bearing British names and certainly bearing British trade marks. I can only say that that appears to me to be a form of dishonesty which any Government in the world, whether East or West, ought to do its best to suppress. I can see nothing that can be gained ultimately by the Japanese if any of their manufacturers are guilty of the infringement of these laws, which are now almost universal. If it is necessary to take steps —that is to say, if we can be given definite material on which we can take definite steps, for instance, by drawing the attention of the Government of Japan to instances which have found origin in their own country, we are quite prepared to take them up, and, I hope, make the necessary impression upon the minds of those who are in control of Japanese commercial affairs.
What is it that my hon. Friends, who have addressed the House on this the third occasion and demanded the Government's immediate attention and action, desire the Government to do? As far as I can gather, there appears to be a fairly general view that we should gain a good deal if we abrogated the Anglo-Japanese Treaty. Let us see what we could gain by it. We should gain a freedom of action which at the present moment is limited by the undertakings into which we have entered. Do not, however, let us forget that the Anglo-Japanese Treaty affects not only this country, but some 28 or 30 other countries within the British Empire. I need not read out a long list; I gave the full list in answer to a question only yesterday; but it covers the case of Canada, the Irish Free State—I am sorry to say that we are not able to act on their behalf—Newfoundland, Ceylon, the Straits Settlements and a very long list of the Crown Colonies and so forth, the most recent addition to that list being Palestine in 1930. But if we were to abrogate that treaty, we should have none of the advantages which come from a commercial treaty between two great countries which still have a large trade conducted between them.
The House was no doubt pleased to hear this afternoon from one hon. Gen-
tleman that the amount of the exports from Japan into this country were rather lower than the value of the exports from this country into Japan during this year. There are some ways in which the Japanese market is of very great advantage to us. I am well aware of the difficulties under which a good deal of this trade is conducted, but while it is there we must take it into account. I cannot quite feel that, balancing the present advantages and disadvantages, we should gain very much on behalf of the textile trade of Lancashire if we began by abrogating those Treaties.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Over the whole range of the countries which are affected by the Treaty, is it not a fact that the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of Japan?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that may be so, taking the whole range. What I was drawing attention to in speaking of the relative amounts of imports and exports was the balance between Japan and this country. I was only putting the point that we would make a mistake if we began by denouncing that Treaty. I would rather take the line which is suggested in the Motion. I would rather take the line of seeing if we could reach agreement first, and then, if we could not reach agreement, seeing if we could free ourselves from engagements which would prevent effective steps being taken. If we found that such effective steps were interfered with by the Treaty, a new consideration would arise. It is rather in the order of procedure than in the fact itself that I differ from my hon. Friend. We should first exhaust all other means before we embarked on the denunciation of the Treaty, and if it became necessary to do that, I should view the whole subject from a different point of view and with a different intent. I hope the House will not overlook the fact, which seems to be forgotten, that we have done a great deal for the cotton trade already so far as its home production is concerned. There are hon. Members who do not think that our home trade is worth protecting when it is compared with our foreign trade. It is true that the export trade is much more important in the cotton industry. But even in the cotton industry the home trade is a matter of importance to
us. That is why the cotton trade has a protection over the whole of its categories of about 20 per cent. Do not let hon. Members forget that fact.
If we had not embarked on the fiscal policy which is generally in operation, Lancashire would have received no protection at all. Whatever we did about Japanese competition in other parts of the world, we should have found that even in Lancashire itself, in the great cities of Liverpool and Manchester, cotton goods made in Japan were selling over the counter—[HoN. MEMBERS: "There are !"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to point out that it would have been a, great deal worse but for the 20 per cent. protection. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is bad enough!"] I will point out what the figures are. The imports of cotton piece goods into the United Kingdom are now at a very low level. The figures for the 10 months from January to October in the last three years are: 1931, 68,400,000 square yards; 1932, 11,000,000 square yards; and 1933, 15,400,000 square yards —a very considerable reduction in the course of two years—and under the direct influence of the policy of the Government

Mr. THORP: Has the right hon. Gentleman figures of English cotton imports into Japan for the same period?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I point out to the House that these facts are not in dispute. It all depends on the emphasis you lay on them. I am not prepared to lay so much emphasis on the disadvantages under which we labour as to give the world the impression that we are being defeated by Japan. We speak too often on this subject with tears in our voices. I do beg hon. Members not to say, when we give encouraging facts, that we are guilty of complacency. The right hon. Member for Darwen actually lectured me on complacency. I know what he means by complacency. He means expressing no satisfaction with an increase in British trade. If only he can say that trade has gone down for the time being, on that point, at all events, he is happy. If it goes up he thinks somehow or other that those of us who sit here on this bench are getting an unfair advantage. I know what the troubles are very well. They are brought to me every day in the week. I have seen some samples of it; they come
in all sorts of forms. Only yesterday one of our hon. Friends was showing in the Lobby a beautiful fountain pen. Three-halfpence was the price of it, with 2½ per cent. discount off. There were brought to me only recently some garments sold in the East End of Landon at ridiculously low prices. I am not going to say what they are, because I am not going to give Japan a cheap advertisement.
Do not let us give the impression in the world that Japan has beaten us. We have troubles with her as a competitor, and it may be that the whole of the Western countries are going to have trouble. It may be necessary that we shall all have to stand together in a common economic cause. That is one of the reasons why we are trying to impress on the Japanese mind the fact that it is well for them to be on a friendly footing with the rest of the world rather than to carry their movements so far that they arouse, not only in this country, but elsewhere, feelings of enmity. Those of us in particular who believe in the cause of peace ought to aim at bringing home the necessity for getting on the best terms with all of her people, not only with her Government, but with her industrialists and with the people themselves. I hope that the time will never come when the working-people of this country get it into their heads that their misfortunes are due, not to the Government of the day—after all, we have to take our chance—but to the movements, say, of the Japanese in the Far East or to the operatives in India. We have solved our own problems in the past, and I hope we can solve this problem by intelligence and ingenuity. believe we can improve the position, and, in the attempt, to defend ourselves from calamities. If Governments can influence the position one way or the other you can be perfectly sure of the support of this Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House views with grave concern the increasing inroads made in the trade of this country through Japanese competition, and urges the Government to state its intention, in the event of satisfactory quota arrangements not being made by agreement with Japan, to take immediately all steps within their power to minimise the competition of Japanese imports, both in home and Empire mar-
kets, freeing themselves, if necessary, from engagements which would prevent effective steps from being taken.

AIR DEFENCE.

7.23 p.m.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave disquiet the present inadequacy of the provision made for the air defence of these islands, the Empire overseas, and our Imperial communications; that it welcomes the insistence which the British delegation have throughout laid at Geneva on this country's need for a one-Power standard in the air; and, whilst supporting the endeavours of His Majesty's Government to secure parity primarily by means of a reduction in the strength of those foreign air forces which at present so largely outnumber our own, urges them to take without delay such other remedial measures as are open to them and, in particular, to consider the early completion of the home defence force decided on in 1923 as the minimum necessary for our national security and approved by each successive Administration since that date.
I move this Motion because 25 years ago I was sent for by the late Admiral Lord Fisher to the Admiralty and charged with developing aircraft for the Navy. At first we made very slow progress. It was not until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) became First Lord that we made any advance. I was able at the big review at Spithead just before the War to place some 30 aircraft over the Fleet. The opinions of the admirals at that day, as I was informed by the Chief of the Staff of the Fleet, were that "Winston's toys" were perfectly useless and that they could perfectly easily be shot down. My opposite number at the War Office, the late General Henderson, had the same opposition from the conservative generals as I had at the Admiralty in developing the Naval Air Service. When War broke out, the Army had very few machines and the Navy had fewer still. All the Army machines were sent over with the Expeditionary Force to the front, and the defence of this country from air attack was left to a handful of naval machines and pilots. Everybody knows we had many Zeppelin raids. They came over to this country to drop bombs, and we had very few machines to try and intercept them. Gradually, as our aircraft developed, we defeated the German Zeppelin menace, and we defeated also
their machines in trying to bomb London. In the last air raid in 1918, 33 machines endeavoured to attack London; only 13 got through and 10 fell by the wayside. As we advanced in the War, with the great help of the aeronautical industry, we turned out the machines that were required not only at the front, but in many parts of the world where we had air operations to conduct. When the War finished we were one of two great air Powers. Successive Governments have gradually reduced our Air Force till now we are the fifth Power in the air.
When we consider the air defence of this country, we have always to ask ourselves the question, "Can the Navy in any way protect us from the aerial bornbardment of London? Can the Army in any way protect us from aerial bombs being dropped on our dockyards and shipyards, on our cities and commercial and industrial centres?" These two services cannot help in any way. If they cannot assist, what are we to do? We have reduced our force to the position of the fifth Power. Why have we done that? We have done it because this nation has made a great gesture of peace to the whole world. We have unilaterally disarmed until we are down to the fifth Power, in the cause of Peace and Disarmament. How have other nations responded to that? Russia is now building up a great air force, I have seen pictures in the Russian Press of great lines of aeroplanes, and they look most efficient. Air development in Russia is getting a first place, and I should like to quote what the Russian War Minister said about it. He sent an open letter to his workers, in which be said:
Whoever has the strongest air force dominates the air, and he who is the strongest in the air is strongest all round.
Russia is going ahead in developing her air force all she possibly can. What is Japan's reply to that? Japan has recently voted £2,000,000 sterling extra to increase her air force because of the air menace from the Soviet Government. What are our Dominions doing? Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are overhauling their air forces, and voting more money to make them efficient. Since 1920 France has increased expenditure on her Air Force by some 112 per cent., and the United States has
increased expenditure on her Air Force by 108 per cent., whereas in that time we have reduced the expenditure on our Air Force by 8 per cent. I ask the Government, "What are we going to do about it?" All those countries are increasing their Air Forces, but we have reduced ours until we are the fifth Power in the air. In 1923 the Lord President of the Council, when he was in charge of the Government, approved our having 52 squadrons for the defence forces of this country, and said we ought to create those at once. Ten years afterwards we have only 42 squadrons. I submit that we ought to raise our Air Force to 52 squadrons. If that was right in 1923 is it the right figure now? I ask the Government to get the Air Minister and his advisers to look into the matter to see whether 52 squadrons is now the right number for the air defence of this country. Things have altered in Europe since 1923. For instance, Germany has a wonderful machine, one of their air liners, the D2000, which could drop 30 tons of bombs in one raid on London. That is the same weight of bombs as were dropped on London in the many raids during the Great War. Further, the speed of machines has increased enormously since 1923, they have a very much longer range and blind flying with wireless direction has been introduced. Another point to remember is that there are four times as many aircraft in Europe now as there were in 1923. Therefore, I ask the Government to look very carefully into this matter and see whether 52 squadrons are sufficient now for the protection of this country.
I pass from that point to the question of our international obligations. Under the Locarno Protocol we have to go to the assistance of Germany if France is the aggressor and to the assistance of France if Germany is the aggressor. Do those nations think we have a sufficient Air Force when we are the fifth Power in the air? I do not know what Germany thinks about it, but I know what France thinks. Not long ago I was talking to a French statesman, and asked him why the French always said that the Treaty of Locarno does not give them sufficient security. He said, "Well, Admiral, you are a sailor, you do not mind blunt speech." I replied, "No, we rather like it." "Well," he said, "the truth is that we do not feel secure under the Treaty
of Locarno because Britain cannot protect Paris from aerial bombardment by her big guns in her battleships." I know that the Lord President of the Council is very persuasive in the conference chambers of Europe, that the flying Prime Minister is even more persuasive in those conference chambers, and that our very able Foreign Secretary, who is an airman, is yet still more persuasive, but I submit that those three right hon. Gentlemen, when they are in the conference chambers of Europe, could do much better if they knew in times of emergency, when things are looking bad round the conference table, that they had a powerful Navy and a powerful Air Force at their back. I know that Britain's name stands very high in conferences in Europe at the present time, but it would stand far higher if we had a very strong Navy and a strong Air Force. It would raise the prestige of Britain at those conferences.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Member allow me to put a question before he leaves that point? He said a French statesman had told him that it was impossible for us to protect Paris. If France, which is really the first Power in the air, could not protect Paris, how could Britain protect London if Britain were the first air Power?

Rear-Admiral SUETER: I think the hon. Member did not quite understand what I said. I said a Frenchman told me that they did not feel security under the Locarno Treaty because we could not protect Paris from aerial bombardment by means of the big guns in British battleships.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that France is still the first air Power, and in that case surely she ought to be able to protect herself.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: The hon. Member who interrupts me cannot follow my argument. I am talking about the Navy protecting Paris under the Locarno Treaty. If the hon. Member will study the Locarno Treaty I do not think he will put those questions. I pass from that to another phase of air defence which is not generally understood. I ask my colleagues in this House, What was the weapon which nearly brought this country and our great Empire to its
knees? It was not the battleship, it was not the battle cruiser, it was not the great gun or the tank; it was the German submarine. When Admiral Sims, that celebrated United States Admiral, a great gunnery expert, came to this country after America entered the War in 1917 he stated in his first report to his Government, in April of that year, that he was gravely concerned about the submarine menace, and he said that Mr. Hoover told him there was only three weeks' supply of grain in this country. Mr. Page, the United States Ambassador, who also reported to his Government at much the same time, gave the sinkings of ships, and said, "If these sinkings of British ships continue there will soon be no more of their ships on the high seas." Admiral Sims asked Admiral Jellicoe what he was doing about it. Admiral Jellicoe told him "We are mobilising everything we can." The Admiralty mobilised all their fast surface craft, their Q boats, commanded by the gallant Admiral the Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell) who, I fear, cannot be in his place to-night by reason of ill-health caused through the stress of the War, they mobilised their drifters and their nets, and they called upon the airmen to do their utmost to bomb the German submarines.
A writer in the Press said recently that the naval airmen sank seven submarines in 1917, but he forgot to mention the submarines our airmen drove ashore on the East Coast. He forgot to mention that from the very moment we established an air station at Dunkirk we started to bomb submarines, and sent many back to their home ports with rivets leaking, superstructure damaged and the morale of their crews partly impaired. He never mentioned, also, that the Italian Commander-in-Chief, a very able Italian officer, threw a net right across the lower Adriatic, and that with the help of our drifters and with the aid of Italian, French and British airmen, we smashed up the Austrian and German submarine menace in the Mediterranean. At one time they were sinking more than £2,000,000 worth of cargo a day in the Mediterranean. With the help of the surface craft and of our airmen we gradually defeated the submarine menace and saved the food of our people, but it was a very near thing, and at one time we had only 10 days' supply of food in
this country. Towards the end of the War all our mercantile captains asked for aerial escort, because they knew perfectly well that no food ship was ever sunk when there was an aerial escort. During the whole War we lost more than 6,500,000 tons of shipping through enemy submarine action; and yet some people say we should do away with aerial bombing, and so deprive this country of the greatest weapon we have against enemy submarines.
What is the position of this country in the matter of submarines? I have here a paper, issued by the Navy League, which furnishes the only information I can get about it. It gives a comparison of fleets on the 31st January, 1933:
Totals of built, building and projected. Submarines: British Empire, 64; United States of America, 84; Japan, 72; France, 110; Italy, 75.
We are the fifth Power in submarines, and I submit that as long as other nations have such a large preponderance of submarines we should retain aerial bombing. A well-known British admiral wrote to the Press the other day and said that it did not matter about air bombing, because submarines had to conform to the rules of conduct of surface ships under the Treaty of London, Article 22, paragraph 4. He cannot know very much about submarine warfare. The whole essence of submarine warfare is secrecy, and for a British admiral to write that a submarine in wartime must act as a surface ship shows that he knows nothing whatever about submarine warfare and has learned nothing by the Great War. I repeat that as long as other nations have this large preponderance of submarines it is prudent for this country to retain air bombing, and I ask whoever is going to reply for the Government whether we have sufficient aircraft to deal with hostile submarines, sufficient amphibian aircraft to go out to search for them and also to search for mines, and sufficient aircraft to drive off the enemy's aircraft that would attack our food ships and our trade ships.
I pass now to naval and military aircraft. We are frequently told that all military aircraft should be done away with. May I examine military aircraft for a minute. During the late War I was called upon to send to General Henderson, over at the front, 130 Sopwith high-
performance machines. They were used to fight the Fokkers, which had then attained an ascendancy over our people at the front. These machines were also used to tell the generals what was on the other side of the hill, or the other side of the wood. I understand that throughout the ages generals have wanted to know what was on tie other side of the hill, but they never did know until aircraft came into being. I will not labour that argument, because my military colleagues can deal with it much better than I can. I would ask this House whether any of the generals of the great military nations would be willing to do away with military aircraft. Would the Japanese generals do away with them? They fed the whole of their front line in Jehol, during the operations there recently, by aeroplane. The reason why the Jehol campaign was so short was entirely due to the aircraft of the Japanese army. I do not think that any Japanese general would ever agree to do away with military aircraft.
Let me turn to the naval side. In 1805, Lord Nelson chased the combined fleets of France and Spain out to the West Indies. He could not find the enemy's fleet out there, and came back to Europe, and the movement ended with the Battle of Trafalgar. If anyone reads the despatches of Lord Nelson, he will see that in all his naval work Lord Nelson was asking for more and more frigates. He wanted frigates to tell him the whereabouts of the enemy. At Jutland, Lord Jellicoe only had one seaplane. The "Campania," which had a good equipment of sea-planes—she was a seaplane carrier—for some unknown reason did not arrive at Jutland until, I believe, too late. If you read Lord Jellicoe's despatches, you find throughout that he wants more information about the enemy's movements. Some of the pacifists in this country want to deprive the Fleet of its eyes—of the naval aircraft which are the very eyes of the Fleet. Would our naval admirals and the great naval admirals of other Powers agree to deprive their fleets of naval aircraft? I very much doubt it. I hope that the Under-Secretary for Air, or the Lord President of the Council, or whoever is to reply, will assure us that we have sufficient and efficient aircraft for the use of the Army and the Navy.
I pass from that to the air defences of the Empire. We have very great responsibilities in the Empire, and wherever the Royal Air Force have been used they have done magnificently. They receive nothing but praise from those who are in a good position to judge. The Royal Air Force have saved this country millions of money and thousands of human lives. I will quote the opinion of one of our great political officers, Sir Henry Dobbs, former High Commissioner in Iraq, who, in writing of air operations, says:
By prompt demonstrations on the first sign of trouble carried out over any area effected, however distant, tribal insubordination has been calmed before it could grow dangerous and there has been an immense saving of blood and treasure.
The Viceroy of India, a very able administrator, in a speech a short time ago, defended air bombing for police purposes. He is the man on the spot, and we ought to trust him. We ought to retain air bombing for peace purposes, in those distant frontiers of Empire. I recollect reading, a short time ago, about the operations at Kabul, when the Royal Air Force evacuated the whole of the Corps Diplomatique from Kabul, some 600 people, and never lost a life. It was a very fine effort indeed, and probably saved us from a war and. from spending thousands of human lives, not only in war operations, but in sickness. Our machines had to fly all the way from Iraq to Kabul, something like 2,000 or 3,000 miles. Those rather depleted squadrons in Iraq were reinforced by squadrons coming from Egypt. I ask the Government whether we have sufficient squadrons in the Near East. If we have to send squadrons all that distance, should we not have more squadrons in India or in Iraq, so that we could send them without depleting our squadrons too much? That is a point which the Government might consider.
I want to say a word upon what is rather a disconcerting topic for some hon. Members, and particularly for some generals and admirals. When you talk about substitution in India, or in any other part of the Empire, most admirals and generals get about half-balmy. The Secretary of State for India will very soon get his White Paper through, I hope.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Oh!

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Yes, I hope he will, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who interrupted me will support him. I hope that the Secretary of State for India will set up a small committee to go into the whole question of Indian defences, in order to see if more substitution can take place. I believe that, if that were done, great economies could be effected. We know that, as a consequence of the White Paper, expenses may be incurred, and we should look round and see where economies could be made. The Royal Air Force cannot do much in the great cities, but they could do something in distant parts of India to relieve our military units, and so save money. Royal Air Force units have great speed and great range, and they can cover far greater areas than military units. I believe that money can be saved in that direction.
In regard to other parts of our Empire, like Gibraltar, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong and so on, one of my colleagues wants to speak, and I will leave that part of the subject to him. I will only say that I have pressed the Under-Secretary of State for Air many times about the defence of Malta. I have asked him questions about the breakwater, and whether he is satisfied with the defence of Malta. I am rather perturbed. I know the Mediterranean very well and what is happening out in the Mediterranean, and I think that the air defence of Malta needs looking into. I should like the Government or the Under-Secretary for Air to assure me that the air defence of Malta is satisfactory. If the Under-Secretary is satisfied, I will ask him whether the Governor out there is satisfied.
I pass to the last portion of my Motion, which is in regard to Imperial air routes. I hear on all sides nothing but praise for Imperial Airways, under the able chairmanship of Sir Eric Geddes, and his managing director, for the way they are running air lines for peaceful penetration right down to Africa and now well on the way to Singapore. All that we need to do is to have feeder lines to link them up, and to send fast aircraft out, carrying mails, light transport and so on. Quick communication is essential for the business men of this country. I hope that a little more money will be spent upon Imperial Airways, to enable them to de-
velop those linking-up lines in the air routes. As we form these air routes, we ought to protect them from anybody who has hostile intent, and I ask the Government whether that is being looked into, and whether they can assure me that those air routes are being properly protected, in case anybody should attack them from the air. I believe in this peaceful penetration, and I also believe that Imperial Airways are doing great national work in carrying on their efficient services.
I think that everybody in this House believes in peace, but just as we believe in the principles of peace we believe in the principle of defence. I submit that every hon. Member has a responsibility in this question of defence. Even the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who is a well-known pacifist, has, I believe, a responsibility, in this House, to see that this country and the British Empire are safeguarded from aerial attack. The duty of hon. Members in the next few months should be to examine the Estimates very carefully indeed, to work through them line by line, and to see that the Naval Estimates give the First Lord the most efficient cruisers he wants—let him scrap all the old ones—and sufficient aircraft to work with the Fleet. The Army Estimates should be scrutinised very carefully, in order to give the Army all it wants in the way of mechanisation and sufficient aircraft for meeting its needs, in case of emergency. Our Air Estimates should provide that we are able to engage any single air-power, with every prospect of success.
I am proud this evening, because I have, as the Seconder of my Motion, the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour). He is a flying man of great experience, and a skilled pilot. He flew some of the naval machines that I provided for General Henderson at the Front. It is because I gave the hon. and gallant Member a good machine, and not a "dud" one, that he is able to second my Motion tonight. He owes his life, I think, to me. He is a young man—a much younger man than I am—and he will put the case for aerial defence from the young man's point of view. He has experience in war. He has been bombed, and has bombed. I think we will listen to his
views with very great interest. I have put my case for adequate air armaments from the experience gained in the hard and bitter school of pioneer work, in connection with submarines and in the air. The late General Sir David Henderson, who was in charge of the military wing when war broke out, and myself, had to make bricks without straw, because this House never voted sufficient money for our air forces. We had to provide air machines, not only for the protection of this country, but for the Front, right, out to the Rufiji River in East Africa, for the Dardanelles, and up as far as Basrah. I do not want to see any other air-commanders put in the same positon as General Henderson and myself. It killed him. I know that it would be his wish, and it is my duty, to submit to this House that we should have a sufficiently powerful Air Force to protect our homes, our great cities, and our dockyards, shipyards and industrial centres. Our Air Force should be powerful enough to drive off enemy submarines that attacked our trade and food ships, and also to drive off enemy aircraft that attacked our trade and food ships. If anything happens to our food ships, we starve; if anything happens to our trade ships, all our people are thrown out of work. Therefore, we want an efficient Air Force to protect these items which I have mentioned, to protect the great places in our Empire that are open to air attack, and also to protect our air communications. believe with every fibre of my being in Holy Writ, and Holy Writ says that
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.
I submit that we should have in this country at least a one-power air standard. We do not know what is going to happen in the unsettled state of Europe; no man knows the combinations that might be against us in Europe, or what jealousies might arise in the Far East. We may have to hold the balance of power in Europe and in the Far East. For that we want at least a one-power standard in the air, and I ask every one of my colleagues in this House to see that we have it.

8.2 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I beg to second the Motion. It has been moved ably and comprehensively by my hon.
and gallant Friend, to whom I owe, not only the opportunity of seconding his Motion, but, apparently, also my life. In advocating the Motion, I want in the first place to make one thing clear, and that is that I—and I think I can speak for the majority, indeed for all of my colleagues in this House to-night—I in no way depart from my belief in limitation of air power by agreement, as opposed to the awful opposite of unrestricted competition in armaments throughout the world. I cannot imagine anything more devastating for civilisation than an unrestricted race in regard to this modern weapon which has such terrible potentialities for humanity. I feel that our objective must be to achieve this limitation among the countries of the world, and at the same time to obtain the very essential security for the citizens of this country and for our communications with our Dominions overseas which is asked for in this Motion. I feel that I am on common ground with the majority in the House when I say that at the present time, owing to circumstances upon which very shortly I will enlarge for a few moments, we have not that adequate security which we should have, in view of the potential dangers of the international situation. The function of the Royal Air Force, as, indeed, is the function of our other two Defence Services, is essentially a defensive function, and not an offensive function; but, in spite of the limitation of its function to defensive purposes, the necessity for the air service still exists very strongly. I think we can take pride to-night in our example to other countries of the world in the way of practical disarmament. We only wish that it had been followed as actively and as wholeheartedly by those other countries who paid lip service to it but have not taken actual steps.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the statement of the Lord President of the Council in 1923, when he said that our requirement then was 52 squadrons of the Royal Air Force for home defence, and that we must always review the strength of our Air Force in the light of the air forces of other European countries. I do not wish to repeat arguments which I used in this House on another occasion just recently; I would only remind the House that relatively, as compared with 1923, we are now, in 1933,
weaker in the air. Although our Air Force has gradually expanded, our relative strength to-day is lower than it was as compared with other European air forces in the year 1923. Nobody can maintain that Europe to-day is more stable, that it is in a more peaceful state than in 1923. The Lord President then said that parity for this country was essential. If it was essential then, I would submit to the House that it is more than essential now, in circumstances which are certainly no more prepossessing than they were then.
I racked my mind to think on what grounds this Motion would be opposed, and I came to the conclusion that there would be two, the first being that of adequacy and expediency. On the ground of adequacy, it may be said that to-day we need not worry, that our Air Force is so fine and so efficient that it can combat any other air force in the world. We know that we have the finest material in. the world, but there is this argument, that adequacy in numbers to-day goes far beyond the old jingoism, that one Britisher is worth any one foreigner, which we used to learn in our youth; it says, in effect, that one Britisher is worth approximately any two foreigners. That may be so, but I do not think it is a sufficiently solid argument on which to base a policy, and I cannot see that it is very compatible with that international Socialism and equality of mankind which is always preached from the benches above the Gangway.
The second and more solid ground on which this Motion might be opposed is reliance on what the Government have said is their final objective, and what the Labour party passed at Hastings as their immediate objective—the total abolition of military aircraft combined with the internationalisation of civil aviation. Those are popular, plausible platitudes, but extraordinarily difficult to put into practical operation. Abolition, I would submit, is an unattainable ideal. You cannot turn the clock backwards. In the old days men fought the introduction of the cross-bow, men fought the introduction of the gun, but they were beaten; you cannot stop the march of progress. Furthermore, there is an overwhelming reason against the abolition of military aircraft, and that is that, if naval and military aircraft were abolished, the one
sure check against the abuse of civil aviation would be removed. Civil aviation is developing throughout the whole world. America has some 11,000 civil aircraft. That constitutes a potential menace to the world; it is something more than 12 times our first-line strength in aircraft. To-day those aircraft are used for peaceful purposes, and I hope they always will be, but, if you removed the naval and military aircraft of the world, you would then convert the peaceful civil aircraft of every country into potential bombers and fighters, suitable for indiscriminate bombing against the civilian populations of the world. If you abolish naval and military aircraft, you convert what I believe to be a great force for peace, conferring great benefits upon mankind at present, and promising more in the future, into a sort of Frankenstein's monster against the ravages of which no army or navy, however powerful, could possibly protect the civilian population.
Directly one uses these arguments, one is told that the remedy lies in the internationalisation of civil aviation. I have studied many schemes, but have not yet found any one that would be workable, nor have I heard of a scheme which appeals to the European countries. One cannot imagine any country agreeing to the degree of interference which would be necessary for such internationalisation, and, furthermore, I think that, from our own Imperial point of view, it would be deplorable to merge our civil aviation, which we are developing in a manner peculiar to our Imperial needs—needs which no other European country has in an identical manner, including, as they do, long-range communications—I think it would be deplorable to merge that in some sort of gigantic international combine administered by the League of Nations at Geneva, with the positive certainty that we should pay the piper and orders for aircraft would go elsewhere. It would kill advance, and we have made a fine technical start in this country in this new development; it would be a crippling blow to industry, and veritably we should then be harnessing Pegasus to a cart.
Even if a workable scheme were produced, what would it achieve? It would achieve none of that protection for civilisation which its protagonists claim
for it, for, if any nation ruthlessly disregarded international obligations such as the Kellogg Pact and other treaties, and went to war, it is not conceivable that that nation would pause in its action in seizing every civil aircraft that it found within its boundaries, to whatever nation such aircraft might belong. We ourselves, at the beginning of the War, took 1,000,000 tons of Dutch shipping. It was a perfectly legal seizure, as was proved subsequently, but it was done in the teeth of the opposition of the Dutch Government and of the Dutch shipowners. One could easily quote instances of belligerents seizing rolling-stock. In at least one instance during the last War, vehicles of the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-lits were seized by a belligerent Power who found them within its boundaries when War broke out.
One argument against the internationalisation of civil aviation is that you cannot internationalise private Aircraft. The idea of a quota is fantastic. Under a quota, any hon. Gentleman here who flies might go to an aircraft works to buy an Aeroplane, and be told: "No; we are expecting Mr. Smith to crash next week, and, when he does, there will be a vacancy in the quota, but until that happens we regret we are unable to sell you an aeroplane." You might as well have quotas for bicycles, or sporting guns, or motor cars, or any of those implements which have a potential use in time of war. In this country private aircraft number something around 900, and commercial aircraft something around 55 to 60. You might be able to try to internationalise the 50 or 60, but could. not deal with the 900 under any scheme for the internationalisation of civil aviation.
Any attempt to protect this country by the abolition of military aircraft and the internationalisation of civil aviation is impracticable, and would do lasting harm to a young industry, while giving no security to this country. I need only add that the United States has made it abundantly clear at Geneva that she will never throw her fleet of civil aircraft into any scheme of internationalisation. Our pioneers have shown us that America and Europe are not so far distant as they used to be, and the time is not far ahead when America and Europe will be linked together by regular air communication. You could not have a scheme of inter-
nationalisation of civil aviation if one of your neighbours, or a neighbour of the United States, refused to enter into any such arrangement.
I reaffirm my belief in limitation by agreement. There are two alternative ways of doing it. The first is to achieve air parity by a convention such as our Government put forward at Geneva. There must be some sort of time limit in negotiations. I do not think it is an unreasonable suggestion to put forward some sort of time limit. The President of the Board of Trade has laid down a time limit with France in an economic dispute, and surely a time limit is equally permissible in the vastly more vital field of national defence. I have just looked up the words of the Lord President of the Council at Birmingham on eth October, when he said:
When I speak of a disarmament convention I do not mean disarmament on the part of this country and not on the part of any other. If we find ourselves on some lower rating and some other country has higher figures, that country has to come down and we have to go up until we meet.
I submit that the time has come when the right hon. Gentleman's words should be given practical force by the gradual building up of our Royal Air Force to a degree which we feel that other countries can come down to, and which would at the same time give essential security for this Empire.
The other possible method is one which, in the presence of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I put forward with considerable diffidence, and that is, Would it not be possible to take this question of air disarmament right out of the Disarmanent Conference at Geneva, right out of the League of Nations, and get the great air Powers of Europe together to make a Treaty, in the way the Treaty of London was made, which forecast an agreed naval programme; get the air Powers away from the diversions and difficulties and procrastinations which surround the Disarmament Conference in so many points, to some point away from Geneva where they could agree; say, a four years' programme for their respective air forces, and then at some future time bring the question of air disarmament back to Geneva, when the matter might be discussed with a view to achieving agreement which we
do not seem to be likely to achieve at present?
I hope that the Minister who replies, if he vetoes this, will give some reason why it cannot be supported, or perhaps even give some slight measure of encouragement to it. I acknowledge that piling up armaments is no security for this country. On the other hand, it is essential that we have reasonable armaments while human nature and the state of European politics are what they are. I do not think any of us who support this Motion want to be in any way unreasonable. I do not feel that one is trying to be bellicose. We ask for action along the lines of the Motion, not for the pride of possession, not for arrogance of supremacy, not for the impressive exercise of power, caring nothing for its political reactions, good or bad, throughout the country, but because we feel that out of stern necessity this Motion must be brought forward and debated, for we have anxiety as regards the safety of the country and the Empire. We feel that we have a civilisation in our nationalism which is of value to the world, and which must be preserved for the good of the world. Our entity as an Empire in good times and bad has been and will be a vital factor in the direction in which civilisation is moving. and, if there is within our grasp the power to alter the existing circumstances, my hon. Friends and I do not feel that we shall be doing right to those whom we guide in the House and those whom we govern if we should continue the risks of the present. Although to-day we live exposed to dangers, the duty lies on us in the House to ensure that to-morrow our citizens are safe.

8.21 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from the word "communications" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
and confirms its full support of the policy of His Majesty's Government in working for the objects in respect of air policy which are declared in the British Draft Convention.
If I thought a Debate upon the original Motion would have served merely to emphasise at home and abroad the extent to which this country in the interests of peace has gone in the direction of unilateral disarmament, if I thought it
would be brought home to people how this country has cut its defences to the bone, and if I had thought it would have impressed on all people that we have these tremendous Imperial responsibilities which we were deliberately prepared to jeopardise in the interests of peace, I think nothing but good could come from the discussion of the Motion. But I am afraid that a discussion on the original Motion would have led some people to suppose that the Government, or perhaps only some considerable section of its supporters, might regard re-armament, or expansion of armaments, which may be forced upon us by the folly of others, with anything but the utmost reluctance and had that impression being conveyed by the Debate, nothing but harm could have come from it.
It is because I believe the original Motion was capable of serious misconstruction, and because I believe it is not capable of achieving the purpose for which it was put down, that I have moved the Amendment, because we must remember, standing here and facing hon. Members opposite, that for the past few weeks there has been a most disgraceful campaign of unscrupulous misrepresentation throughout the country on this question of peace or war. I think, whereas some hon. Members opposite may imagine that they will derive some satisfaction from something that may be said in the Debate, that if they look round the world to-day, and are honest with themselves, they will remember that, of all the Powers in 'the world, the Power which is striving the most to build up air armaments is the militaristic dictatorship in Russia, The Russians must be judged by their actions and not by their words. I look upon the subject of this Amendment as being essential for one suspended judgment. I should have been inclined to take my stand upon the declaration made by the Foreign Secretary last Friday and that made by the Lord President of the Council last Monday, and I should be in full sympathy with the attitude adopted in the leading article in to-day's "Times."
The Motion, as originally drawn, by implication ignores the Draft Convention of last March which still remains the basis of Government policy. I can well understand the objection raised to the delays which have occurred at Geneva.
They have become intolerable, and anybody might reasonably be thoroughly dissatisfied with them; but I would remind the House that Europe to-day is faced with an entirely new situation. Whether we like the man and his policy or whether we do not, the fact remains that the advent to power in Germany of Herr Hitler has in effect cut away an immense amount of deadweight from the disarmament discussions, and, for the first time since the War, the two main obstacles to a peaceful solution of the European situation are actually coming together in direct negotiation.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Will my hon. and gallant Friend tell us what would happen if Chancellor Hitler failed?

Wing-Commander JAMES: I do not think that to answer that question would be in any way relevant to the argument which I am submitting to the House. We have to face the situation which exists to-day and not a situation which may arise in six month' time. Pending the outcome of the direct discussion which is now being initiated, the whole matter of an increase of our admittedly insufficient power should be left, so to speak, sub judice. I think that I shall be in order if I divert for a moment from my argument to call attention to the technical aspect of re-armament. Any increase in air armaments cannot be considered by itself. There was a time nearly 20 years ago when one could visualise a purely land war in which the Navy took no part, or a naval war in which the land forces were not concerned. But that does not apply to-day. To-day any war will be a war at least of two services, and yet despite the fundamental changes in the strategy of war we still have our three fighting services in watertight compartments.
I fail to see how this Government or any other Government, faced with a need for re-armament, could possibly secure satisfactory consideration of the problem under the present system. I am not at the moment arguing in favour of the establishment of a Ministry of Defence. I think that we shall have to come to that eventually. A Ministry of Defence, from the point of view of practical politics, would not at the present time be workable, beck use there is no staff trained for it. There are three separate services, with three separate
doctrines, necessarily in conflict, inevitably giving different and biased advice to the Government. One may be told that the Committee of Imperial Defence performs the necessary function. I submit that it does not, and I urge the Government to deal with the whole question of staff training in order to obtain that co-operation between the services. Thus alone could any balanced expansion of the services be obtained. All that we have now is an extraordinarily efficient nucleus Air Service.
The unamended Motion before the House is a counsel of despair. I do not think that it is logical. If we are to anticipate a war in the immediate future a mere increase of two or three squadrons is not sufficient. You have to go the whole hog and have an enormous Air Force. I do not believe for a moment that war is imminent. The nucleus we have at the moment is sufficient, in view of the relative speed with which the Air Force, by comparison with the Navy, can be built up from an efficient nucleus. We have already given the world a magnificent lead in the direction of disarmament, and we should wait and not consider re-armament until and unless re-arming is forced upon us. It has not been forced upon us yet, and I do not think that it will be. I cannot support the original Motion, not because I disagree with it altogether, but because it contains that most dangerous of all lies, namely, a half-truth.

8.32 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Motion upon their very able speeches and upon the very restrained and fair way in which they put their case. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion rather visualised a world in which there will be no limitation of armaments, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded believed that it was possible to have limitation of air forces or armaments. I believe that the real difference between us is one of time, and before we have to consider the measures which the hon. and gallant Member suggests we must be convinced that we cannot succeed in getting a limitation of air forces or of armaments. I was a little surprised that they did not make out a stronger case for the Motion by
urging the immediate increase of the Air Force. Nobody suggests that there is an emergency in the world to-day. If there is any case for increasing the Air Force immediately it must be that our air defence and air position are different from our defence either by land or by sea. I do not believe that that is so. As the hon. and gallant Member so ably put it, we have to consider the whole question of defence, and it would be much better to consider it from that point of view rather than from the point of view of any special pleading.
My hon. and gallant Friends have both played a great and conspicuous part in building up the position of the great new force. I was a foot slogger and could not tell the difference between any aeroplanes which dropped bombs. Is our air position really any different from that of land and sea? Can there be an emergency? I want to take up that point, because it is very important. Is it possible, is it conceivable that an unknown nation will suddenly raid us, break the Kellogg Pact, act contrary to all their obligations and destroy us between dusk and dawn? Such a thing is inconceivable at this time, and therefore we are justified in taking the risk until we know the Disarmament Conference has failed. In the last War Germany resorted to the illegal use of gas. She did it when she was hard pressed and thought she was going to lose. It was a fundamental mistake on the part of Germany and united all the world, except the Central Powers, against her. Can any nation hope to succeed in war by breaking all the laws governing the relations of nations and bringing over, suddenly, great numbers of aircraft charged with gas at the very beginning of the war? The result would be that all the members of the League of Nations and all the nations outside the League would be at once united in opposing the Power which began war by breaking all the laws. That, I believe, is a tremendous safeguard against any emergency.
If we are going to be attacked by a nation, if we are going to be wiped out in a night, we ought to know what nation is going to perform that act. I want to know where that nation is. I want to know what is its form of Government and who are the people who live in that country. I do not think that any-
body would suggest that Germany is likely to be that nation, for the simple reason that I believe she has not at the moment any military aeroplanes. What about Russia? Perhaps hon. Members above the Gangway opposite may be able to tell me more about the position of Russia than I know, but I should imagine that Russia is still too far off to be a danger in that respect. I do not believe that her air force has developed sufficiently, even if she wanted, to carry out a long continued raid in the air. What about France? France has fortified her eastern frontier and kept up a large army, but no one suggests that France is therefore an aggressive nation. France has done that because within living memory she has been invaded twice.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Is the hon. and gallant Member forgetting the Treaty of Locarno?

Captain GUNSTON: I am not. I am coming to that point.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: If we got the support of Germany and France was the aggressor, would not France be our enemy then?

Captain GUNSTON: France looks upon us as a possible helper if she is attacked, and she is the last country likely to attack this country, especially having regard to her obligations under the Treaty of Locarno. My point is, that there is no emergency at the moment. Therefore, we are justified in taking risks if necessary until we know that the Disarmament Conference has failed. If the Motion was carried I cannot help feeling—I know that it is not the intention of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion—that it would make the task of the Foreign Secretary considerably more difficult at Geneva, not on account of the words which are printed on the Order Paper but because, intentionally or otherwise, the words would be misrepresented abroad. Supposing we were to say to France: "We are at this moment going to rearm," would not France say: "Is England, an island kingdom, afraid? If she is afraid, then we must do likewise." How are we going to say to Germany: "This is the moment when we must increase our Air Force," when we are saying to Germany: "You must have no military aeroplanes." Would not Germany say: "We must have the
right to rearm"? Therefore, the Motion would have a very bad effect abroad.
It may be necessary to do as the mover of the Motion suggests, but why not wait? Surely he does not want to jeopardise our chance of getting agreement by allowing a Motion like this to go forward. I cannot help feeling that such a Motion might be misrepresented at home unintentionally, by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I think he must have been rather amused when he saw the Motion on the Order Paper. He is very good at starting a hare, and so is his party. They started one at East Fulham and it ran there, but it was killed in the open, I am glad to say, at Market Harborough. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) told us of the great mass of enthusiastic people in that Division and all over the country, who were not very well informed. I am afraid that in moments of hysteria they occasionally do curious things. They might even vote for the Labour party. This is not the moment to lead the country in the wrong direction. If we put forward to the country the measures we are taking to ensure peace, we should have the country behind us. There is a danger of this Motion being misrepresented and making our task not only harder abroad but more difficult in this country.
The hon. and gallant Member who introduced the Motion wants security; we all want security throughout the world, and in the British proposals in the Draft Convention we have laid down a great foundation stone for giving security and peace. My hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Motion thinks that it would be a dangerous move to abolish all military aeroplanes, and that fear is founded upon the danger that might arise from the use in war of what are now civil aeroplanes. If we could control civil aviation throughout the world we could abolish military aeroplanes, and if we could do that we could get back to the time before the War when there were no military aeroplanes. However disastrous it might be to an enthusiastic Air Member, I do think that it would be an advantage to the cause of peace if we could take that course. My hon. and gallant Friend agrees that we should limit the number of aeroplanes, and he will find the Draft Convention lays down in very clear words the means by which that
limitation could be reached. If we can get security we can get agreement, and I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friends not to make the task of getting agreement more difficult by a Motion which may, unintentionally, do harm.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: The hon. and gallant Member who moved and the hon. and gallant Member who seconded this Motion said they were doing so because they were concerned for the security of our fellow countrymen; they were concerned to protect them against the menace of attack from the air. I submit that they could have taken no course more calculated to increase the menace of attack from the air than the course they have taken this evening. If the Motion was carried—even the fact that it has been put down is itself dangerous—it would mean an end to the disarmament conversations which have been continued with such difficulty so long. It would mean an end not only to conversations with regard to disarmament in the air but an end to conversations with regard to disarmament of all kinds.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Rot.

Mr. WILMOT: If the hon. and gallant Member will wait a few moments I will show him in what way he is menacing the peace of our fellow citizens. If this Motion were carried, not only should we be at the beginning of a new race in aerial armaments but at the beginning of a new race in all kinds of arms. I should like to refer for a moment to a speech made by the Lord President of the Council in this House as recently as Monday last. He said:
"I think it is well that we should look at facts, and that we should realise that there are three possible ends to the discussions that have been taking place. You may have a disarmament of all countries to the level of existing German armaments; you may have a limitation of armaments at a point which excludes all large offensive weapons. Their size and quality are very well known to those who are familiar with technical discussions. In that event … you would have Germany in time rearming to that point. The third alternative is competition in armaments. Those are the three possibilities. What I say there is that in no circumstances must that third alternative be reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1933; col. 650, Vol. 283.]
It is the third alternative which is the logical outcome of the Motion put down by the hon. and gallant Member. His speech sounded to me like a voice from the past. He spoke of security in the old pre-1914 conception of security. He sees security in terms of big armies; each nation claiming and exercising the right to possess sufficient armaments to enforce its will and defend its ownself-judged interests against the rest of the world, either alone or in a single alliance. The hon. and gallant Member apparently agrees that that is his conception of security. The situation would not be so serious if the hon. and gallant Member was alone in that conception, but, unfortunately, the speech he has made, so ably seconded by the hon. and gallant Member, represents a very large body of opinion of those who control Conservative party policy and the policy of this Government, and it is the belief, so reinforced this evening, that these are the real sentiments of a large body of people and interests capable of influencing Government policy which give rise to the misgivings to which the hon. and gallant Member opposite referred.
These misgivings are proved to be correct. There is in this country and in this House a large section of the Conservative party, with this pre-War conception of security, intent upon throwing over the whole idea of collective peace and returning to 1913 armament conceptions. That is the danger of the situation, and it is the implications of this attitude which will rise abroad, it will be interpreted, as perhaps they have the right to be interpreted, as the sentiment of those who are in a position to control the Government, which will do irreparable damage to the hopes for peace and disarmament shared by all lovers of peace all over the world. This pernicious propaganda which is going on in the Press from interested parties, from those who manufacture the implements of death, those who draw profits from their sale and from those who are employed in the curious and somewhat doubtful business of acting as commercial travellers for those who have armaments for sale, is designed to press the Government into a big army and navy and air force policy.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Absolute and unadulterated rot!

Mr. WILMOT: It would seem that the hon. and gallant Member has omitted to read his "Daily Mail" the last few mornings. This national newspaper, to which the public have become accustomed to look for the voice of the Prime Minister, has been carrying on an insistent propaganda not for a small increase of one or two aeroplanes, but for an increase of no less than 4,000 fighting planes, and this at a time when the Lord President explained, and the Foreign Secretary explained, we have put forward as the British Government point of view in the draft plan at Geneva that a, maximum for the great air Powers, including ourselves, should be 500 aeroplanes and a reserve of not more than 125. At the present time we have a fighting strength of 1,434 fighting aeroplanes and 981 civil aeroplanes. If these figures are not correct, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman opposite will correct me, but I am quoting from the principal organ which represents—so nearly, as a rule—the opinions of the Government.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Which one?

Mr. WILMOT: The "Daily Mail." I think if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the official figures he will find that they happen on this occasion to coincide. The "Aeroplane" magazine, which is devoted to the technical interests of aeroplane manufacturers, is carrying three or four full-page advertisements offering for sale, not civil aeroplanes, but fully-equipped military aeroplanes. I presume that one does not secure Air Ministry contracts by advertisements in sixpenny magazines; and these adverisements are supported by the very interesting, and in my view somewhat terrifying, information that the firms who are offering these bombing planes for sale have recently sold very large quantities of them to the very Powers whom the hon. and gallant Member regards as the impending enemy, against whom we should defend ourselves. This is the beginning, I say, of a new race in armaments.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: What Powers are they?

Mr. WILMOT: I do not know what Powers the hon. and gallant Member refers to when he speaks of the impending enemy.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: I mentioned no Power.

Mr. WILMOT: Whoever they may be, he may be quite sure that they purchased their aeroplanes in the British market, because it is stated in the technical paper to which I have referred that practically every country in the world has been buying British-made bombing planes. I was saying that this Motion, and the speech which the hon. and gallant Member has delivered, arise from an obsolete conception of what really constitutes security. I believe, and there is a very vast number of persons who believe with me, that security is no longer to be found in the possession of it does not matter how many military aeroplanes: that security is only to be found by getting a collective guarantee that the common peace will not be broken, and relying on that collective assurance by all civilised nations, that they will see to it by collective action that the peace of all is maintained.
That conception is entirely foreign to the Mover and Seconder of this Motion. They are living in a world that has gone; and it is a world that has gone, very largely, owing to the growth of aerial transport. The terrifying development of the aeroplane as a military weapon has completely transformed all conception of defence and security. I would like to refer to a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council in this House on 10th November last year. I refer to that speech because it expresses in very eloquent terms exactly what I mean when I say that even if the hon. and gallant Member had his way he would certainly destroy the peace of Europe but would not achieve the defence of our fellow countrymen. The Lord President of the Council said:
"I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people"—
and I presume he is referring to people like the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Motion—
whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to describe in very vivid and eloquent terms the conditions of an air raid on London or some other British city if modern aerial science was used. He explained
that there would be hundreds of cubic miles, possibly, thick with clouds and fog, and it would not matter how many defensive aeroplanes we could get, it would be impossible to intercept that attack. He continued:
Calculate how many aeroplanes you would have to throw into that to have any chance of catching odd aeroplanes as they fly through it. It cannot be done, and there is no expert in Europe who will say that it can. The only defence is in offence, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves.
I think that speech from the Lord President of the Council completely disposes of the idea that there is any security to be found in aerial armament. I think I was right when I said that if the Movers of this Motion had their way, they would, by destroying the Disarmament conversations, lead us not into security but into war, and they would lead us into a war in which, no matter how many aeroplanes we possessed, we should still not have the means of defending ourselves against attack.
I should like, if I am not wearying the House, to refer for a moment to the Amendment. This Amendment is put down, I suppose, for the purpose of securing support for the Government's policy as expressed in the Draft Convention. We on this side of the House do not approve of that Draft Convention in so far as the aerial provisions are concerned. We regard it as a very great advance on what was done before, but so long as it contains the dangerous reservation with regard to bombing, so long as it contains one or two rather half-hearted and tentative features, we feel it is capable of very great improvement.
Those who moved this Motion ask for more money. They ask for more money for the Air Force, more money for the Army, and more money for the Navy. I hope hon. Members realise that the Budget is said to have been balanced only by the expedient of reducing the wages and the salaries of a very large proportion of the population and reducing below the starvation point those unfortunate fellow-citizens of ours who are out of work. If this policy were carried out, it would mean that we must abandon for ever any hope of a restoration of those cuts and a return to any higher standard of life. I regret that it is not possible for me to support the Amend-
ment for the reasons which I have given. I hope it will yet be possible for the Government to see their way to make an advance on the terms of the Draft Convention as submitted. Surely it is time that we cut through the entanglements of tonnage and weights and measurements and all these technical difficulties. I quote again from the speech of the Lord President of the Council last year. He said:
The amount of time that has been wasted at Geneva discussing questions such as the reduction of the size of aeroplanes, the prohibition of the bombardment of the civil population, the prohibition of bombing, has really reduced me to despair. What would be the result of reducing the size of aeroplanes?
That is one of the proposals in the British Draft Convention.
Immediately every scientific man in the country will turn to the making of a high explosive bomb about the size of a walnut and as powerful as a bomb of big dimensions…If the conscience of the young men should ever come to feel with regard to this one instrument that it is evil and should go, the thing will be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; cols. 632–638, Vol. 270.
I submit to the House that the young men have come to that conclusion. The young men and the young women of this country are demanding that disarmament shall proceed at a greater pace and insisting that our security depends upon an immediate accomplishment of some magnitude. I trust that what is being done will not be rendered useless by Motions such as that which has been moved this evening, and that when the result of the Division upon it is made known we shall announce to the world that it has been defeated by an overwhelming majority.

9.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) summed up his objections to the remarks of the last speaker quite truly and frankly I am not very much impressed by the fulminations from the Fulham Road, because I feel it is within the right of every Member to put down a Motion of this kind. When, in connection with any form of armament, gesture after gesture has been made by this country to the rest of the world with no effect, it is the right of a Member of this House to draw the attention of the House and the country to where we stand
in relation to that particular service. If, after years of making gestures to the world for naval disarmament, we found ourselves to-day fifth or sixth in the world in naval power there would be an outcry throughout the country. Yet in a service which I maintain to be even more important, namely the air service, from being first in the world we have made gesture after gesture until we now find ouselves fifth. It is the hon. and gallant Member's right to point out that fact and to make the not extravagant claim that we should at least be equal to our nearest neighbour in air strength. Indeed, the speeches to-night, although I have not agreed with them all, seemed to me to be of the most moderate type and it must be difficult to please the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) if he cannot agree with either the Motion or the Amendment.
I wish again to make a point that I am almost tired of making here year after year on the question of the money which we spend on defence. We can only afford a certain sum and yet every year when the Estimates are brought forward, sometimes the Air Estimates are taken first, sometimes the Army Estimates and sometimes the Navy Estimates and we debate the Air Vote, for instance, before we know what the Navy Vote is going to be. If we can only afford a certain amount for the defence of the country, is it not the province of the House of Commons to decide how that money can best be spent to secure efficiency? That is what the House is meant to do. But it never has the chance. The Estimates for these three Services will be brought up very soon and we shall debate them one by one, each independent of the others. Yet they all relate to the question of defence and defence alone. I am sure it would not upset the most ardent pacifist on the benches opposite if we had a general Debate on the most efficient means of spending the money which is available for defence purposes. There is, I know, a naval programme and there is also an air programme. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, with all the weight of an ex-Chief Whip, has announced that he is going on with three cruisers, and that announcement has been made before the Air Ministry have had
time to see what they are going to do. Surely that is a wrong procedure. I do not suppose that we shall he able to introduce a new procedure in this House, but I hope that when the first service Estimate is introduced, for whatever service it may be, we shall be allowed a Debate on the broad question of defence bringing in all three services.
We have been told that we are the fifth air power in the world. That may be—and I think there is a primâ facie case for assuming that it is—a rather ridiculous position for us to occupy. But geography comes into the consideration of this question. I do not think we are very much alarmed at the number of aeroplanes in the United States and, frankly, I do not get very excited about the number of aeroplanes in Russia. I imagine that the Opposition should be concerned about the number of aeroplanes in Japan because that is the country with which we should have been at war had they been in office. I do not think, however, that we are much concerned on that score about Japan. As to Italy, now that General Balbo has been abolished, perhaps we may look with a. feeling of security towards that country also—not that General Balbo was ever an enemy of this country where he was always welcomed as a great friend and sportsman. But we come down to France and Germany. There is little danger really from France to-day. Of course, if Geneva is going to be made a technical reason for war by this country, as is advocated from the other side, it might easily be the case if the Opposition got into power that we should have to fight France. As that eventuality, thank goodness, is unlikely I think we can dismiss the possibility of any threat from France. It is too remote.
We are entitled to ask, however, why should France keep up such an enormous air force? If it is not directed against us against whom is it directed? The answer is, Germany. It may sound a silly answer but it is the real answer. Germany is not allowed military aircraft, but the point which I want to drive home is that to-day there is no difference between civil aircraft and military air-craft. Let that be fully understood. Last Friday I tried to put this point before the House, but at the time I think most Members were having lunch, and I
did not seem to make much impression though I did my best. I pointed out with all the force I could that until we divorced civil flying from military flying we should never solve this problem of air armaments.
The trouble when you get down to the question is the subsidies. It is quite true that you cannot maintain great air routes from a country like ours to Africa or Australia without a subsidy. As a matter of fact, Imperial Airways run their London-Paris service economically, and it could pay, but that is the only line in Europe which would pay to-day. There is not one line of civil aircraft running which could exist in Europe to-day without a subsidy, and in every country in Europe money from the Government is being poured into these lines on the basis of nominally helping civil aviation, but really as a reserve of military machines. That is one of the curses of aviation today. I gave a technical solution of the question last Friday. My idea was to compel civil aviation to run on heavy oil engines, which would give them an inferior performance to that of the actual war machines, with the result that the civil aircraft trying to bomb in case of war would be mopped up like a lot of chicken by a really efficient air force, and that would discount the probability of civil aircraft going into a war. If we could introduce that, if our Government could really force this upon Europe, as I think they could, we should be not in the position then of having to build our Air Force up to something bigger; France would automatically see that her danger had gone and would reduce her armaments, and consequently we could very easily, along that line, get to a state of parity with her.
I feel very sincerely for my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when the House and the country plead that we should have an Air Force comparable with that of any other country. To-day, from the point of view of the air, we are in the same state as we were in with regard to the Navy before the War, when it was felt that if we failed with the Navy the country would be defeated, and the country dare not run that risk before the War. Now we dare not run the risk of being defeated in the air. It may be true to say that the risk is very small. This may be the time, during the next
few years, to try to get, through international agreement, some divorcement between military and civil aviation, so that we know exactly where we are, and the fears that lie at the hearts of everyone in Europe could for once and all be dispersed. I believe that if that could occur, small but very efficient air forces would be the order of the day.
But I say again that I have been too long at aviation really to enjoy seeing the position as it is to-day. I have seen so many of my friends killed in trying to develop what is nothing now but an armament. Is that all that civil aviation is going to be? Is it not really a mockery, only a reserve of military machines throughout the whole world? Along the Thames Embankment there is a memorial to those airmen who fell in the War, and upon it are written these words:
I bare you on eagles' wings and brought you unto myself.
There is too much of the "eagles' wings" about aviation to-day, and it is high time there was some talk of the doves' wings, but until we can force a division between military and civil aviation there is no hope. If you think you are going to solve this question by building squadron against squadron, you will be defeated. You cannot in that way solve this question. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said that the youth of the country must find a solution. The idea of competitive armaments is not the idea of youth; it is the idea of children, be they in their first childhood or their second.

9.20 p.m.

Captain GUEST: The position in which the Mover and Seconder of the Motion are placed by the Amendment, and the position of those of us who came here this evening to support the Motion, is rather a difficult one. The Amendment, which cuts out all after the word "communications" and inserts other words, unfortunately eliminates the last three lines of the original Motion, and I think I am right in saying, although other members of the Air Committee may get a chance to speak, that what we most strongly felt in supporting the Motion was that the last three lines, which read as follows:
and, in particular, to consider the early completion of the home defence force decided on in 1923 as the minimum
necessary for our national security and approved by each successive administration since that date
were very important lines. But if the Government are prepared to accept the earlier part of the Motion, I think I, for one, would be prepared to agree, because these words would appear:
That this House views with grave disquiet the present inadequacy of the provision made for the air defence of these islands, the Empire overseas, and our Imperial communications.
If the Government seriously mean to indicate that they consider also with us that concentrated thought must be given to this problem. I will myself for the time be satisfied. The subject seems to be of such grave importance that it must be approached with restraint and caution, but equally it should be approached with determination. I do not think anybody should be afraid to face the question, which has to be faced by this country, of self-protection.
A little time ago I attempted to indicate, in a letter to the "Times," how anxious I was that nobody should precipitate international misunderstanding by launching into racing, either with ships, with new divisions, or with aircraft. I fear it might easily be misunderstood and do more harm than good. But that was some time ago, and things have happened since which force us to reconsider the whole situation. Since then Germany has thought fit to separate herself from the League, and since then, I am sorry to say, the Dictator of Italy has thought fit to ridicule the League, so that, one way and another, things are changing, and we must keep pace with the changing times. If in this House we find it hard to keep pace with the changing times, how much more difficult is it not for the man in the street? The man in the street is bombarded by one newspaper or another and is expected to remember the various Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles, and if he is not expected to remember all of these, he is certainly expected to know all the Clauses of the Treaty of Locarno. The poor man in the street is in a whirl, and the first duty of the Government today is to clarify the situation for the humble man, the elector, who has from time to time to register his vote in favour of one policy or another.
I think there is a way, but it is impossible for a back bencher to do more than suggest, and in order to make the suggestion worth anything, I must ask for a few moments' patience before returning to the main subject of the Motion. The Treaty of Locarno covers so many possibilities that, as I said, the elector is staggered. There is one Clause which, if broken, might possibly lead to war, and that is the Clause which deals solely with our promise to defend France should she be invaded by Germany. I believe the Government would be wise to limit our liabilities to that Clause and to no other. You could never get England to go into a preventive war, nor do I think France would quite expect it. But, turning the matter round the other way, I do not adopt at all a bellicose attitude when I say that England would come to the rescue of France if she were definitely invaded by Germany. If that is so, and that is the feeling that the Government have as to the views of the electors, then the simple thing to do is to form an Anglo-French defensive alliance and let everybody in Great Britain know it.
Coming back to the main Motion: as previous speakers have said, we must see where danger may come from. If we have an Anglo-French defensive alliance, it is obviously not corning from France. It is equally obvious that the only other great nation within reach of our shores is Germany. We mist, therefore, cast our eyes upon conditions in Germany today; we must see if we can unravel the tangle in which we find her. Where she is going to is obscure, but the fact that it is obscure should not make us ignore a statement made by Herr Hitler as late as 23rd November, in which he said, "If such an alliance were in view, I should willingly subscribe to it, for I have no intention of attacking my neighbour." Some people think that Herr Hitler, because he is a German and has been an enemy of Great Britain, must of necessity be a dishonest humbug. I do not see that it is fair to say that, or why a great deal of credit should not be given to him. It is more than likely that he is struggling with an overwhelming problem; that he is not very ably supported, and that he therefore sometimes does not quite know how to get through with his task.
The policy we should adopt towards Germany is to give her time. We must put the good intentions of Herr Hitler to the test. Let us watch the progress of the negotiations which are supposed to be taking place between himself and France, and see whether he fulfils his good intentions in those negotiations. I am sure that his programme is to rebuild the civil and social life of Germany. There may be at the back of his mind, or in the minds of others who are with him, an intention to rearm as soon as Germany is able to afford it. But if we are watchful and reasonably trustful, we are more likely to stave off the evil day.
I must come back to the main theme which runs through the Motion, and that is whether our defences, and particularly our air defences, are adequate. That is the most difficult thing to find out. Those of us who can only criticise, as we have no power, cannot do better than fall back upon the advice given to successive Governments by various Prime Ministers. That is why the three last lines of the Motion were inserted. The programme for which we are pressing was first of all introduced by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council who is sitting below me. It was then sponsored by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and then through its various phases has been brought up to date. But we have two duties to perform, and one is a difficult duty which we cannot avoid: it is a duty to our own population. If those responsible for the safety of the State really think that the country is not safe—whether the danger is great or email, if it is truly in existence—they have no right to mislead the population.
Everybody who has had anything to do with the air knows quite well the way in which Germany has developed during the last 10 years. If the minimum programme of 53 squadrons for home defence was considered to be sufficient to meet the needs of the country in a day when there was no Germany at all, it is obviously far less adequate to meet the situation as we find it here to-day. Further than that, this 52-squadron programme has never been made up-to-date. Worse than that, it has been depleted for the purpose of economies in other directions. Some people say, as hon. Members have said, that bombing could be
so easily undertaken that no part of England is safe. If anybody wanted a curious and remarkable illustration of that saying, I could find one in the newspapers. It is the business of those who study the aeronautical journals, of those who watch the development of the air, from time to time to bring these cases and illustrations to the minds of hon. Members who are otherwise engaged. I see that a civil aircraft made in Germany has flown from Berlin to Seville, an enormous distance, and that it reached that town in eight hours. It travelled at an average speed of 230 miles an hour. That same aeroplane could have gone twice from Hamburg to Hull in the same time and have dropped on Newcastle or Hull its entire load with a damage almost incalculable. So, although it may be a mistake to dwell too much on these terrible illustrations, they must not be kept from the public completely or we shall be cheating them the other way.
I therefore ask, are we really, in the minds of the experts, in a safe position? Are we really playing the game? Are we really being honest with our people in leaving things exactly as they are? I submit that we are not, and I submit that with so much sincerity that I am doing my best to refrain from beating the subject more violently. I hope that the Government will see their way to move along the lines of adequate protection. It might be unwise for them to announce a complete programme. They should follow the lines indicated by the Under-Secretary to-day, that in four years' time, spread over that period, the original programme for which they are asking should be undertaken and completed. That would not seem to the public a great expenditure of money, and would show that the Government appreciated these dangers in the air.
Nor do I think it would be fair for hon. Gentlemen, particularly on the benches opposite, to complain that being prepared is rearming. I do not think it is. Being prepared is a most natural thing, a thing that any man does when he goes home and locks his door. Our door is not locked. There are many things we could do which are not offensive internationally but would be of great value to us if we were ever called upon to turn out and produce our might and main: such things as ground organisation in its various forms; separation—as my hon.
Friend below me said—of the civil and military sides, and the increasing of the subsidies to the civil side. If these things were done openly, they would represent a great advance in the administration of the Department. There are many other things I could mention, but many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will just conclude my remarks with one or two more items which have come to my mind.
Preparedness is not rearmament. I do not think that any fault could be found with the word "preparedness" so long as the idea were properly adhered to. The Government must not suggest that there is panic. I do not want to see, any more than they do, panic legislation such as was advocated in one of the leading journals. That was going too far and would undoubtedly have a disturbing and distressing effect upon the international situation. But that is not what the Air Committee are asking for. What they are asking for is that the considered advice of the Prime Ministers of the last three Governments as to the minimum numbers of squadrons for safety in home defence should be acted on and the programme carried through to a conclusion.
Finally, some of us—I my-self perhaps in particular—are in a very difficult position if no indication appears in the White Paper that precedes the Air Estimates. I put questions of national defence before any other considerations. I would not believe during 1912 and 1913 that there was going to be a war, until it actually occurred in 1914. I was one of a great party which refused to consider the possibility of it. We were not ready. I do not want us to be caught again. Is it wrong to be on the right side, to be on the safe side? Is it wrong, not to be on the aggressive side, but to feel at least that the advice given to you for the last 10 years as to what is reasonable in the way of air defence for domestic purposes—not for launching expeditions particularly, but for home defence will be followed? Is it unreasonable for me to say to the Government, "Give us some reason why you cannot provide that at all? Can you tell me that the risk is less dangerous now than 10 years ago? Can you tell me that these 10 squadrons which you have never provided are less needed than they were in 1922, 1923 and
in all the years that have gone by?" Otherwise, I shall find it difficult, almost impossible, to support the Air Estimates when they are introduced next spring.

9.36 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have, for my sins, been twice in the Army and twice in the Navy. That may perhaps excuse a certain lack of orthodoxy in my views. It seems to me that something much more is wanted than an increase in the Estimates. What I am really nervous about is not that the defence of the country is not intended to be sufficient, but that people who are responsible for the defence of the country are not thinking of what the danger is against which they are intending to defend it. We have carried on during the last 15 years without any real danger in this country at all. It has not really mattered what we spent on the Army, the Navy or the Air Force because there was no possible chance of them ever being used. We could go on with the country existing for the benefit of the services instead of the services existing for the benefit of the country. But now, I think, the case is different, and what I want to ask, not from the Secretary of State for War or from any of the Service Ministers, but from the Committee of Imperial Defence, is whether the situation in which we find ourselves to-day is not a completely different one that needs a completely different line of thought, a completely different expenditure of our money, and a recasting of our military and naval views altogether.
I should like to believe, like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), in the expressed views of Herr Hitler. He may be speaking what he honestly believes to be the fact, but if he is not, and we have to remember that he may not be, the situation for this country is completely different. Everybody realises that we cannot stop Germany re-arming. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut. Colonel Moore-Brabazon) showed a way in which it was possible to re-arm on modern lines without making any infraction of any treaty at all. I do not doubt that whatever may he done at Geneva or in any future conference on disarmament which does not prevent civil aviation, it will make no
difference to the danger of war in future. That all depends upon a clear conviction in the minds of the Committee of Imperial Defence that the war of the future will not be like any others wars of the past. We have not got the money, even if we had the intention, for preparing for war against everybody. War against America—the idea is childish; war against Japan—the risks are insignificant; but here you have an infinitely greater danger. Defeat by Japan or by America would not really shatter England, but if the war is going to be a war in the air with Germany, we have to cut -our coat according to our cloth and prepare for that one thing alone. The Admiralty spends sleepless nights trying to devise how battleships costing £4,500,000 can be beaten by a battleship costing £4,000,000 built in Japan. What does it matter? They will both run away when it comes to a fight, for you cannot afford to risk a thing costing all that money. What really does matter is whether within three hours of the declaration of war this country will be wiped out with bombs.
If we are to go on being prepared, we cannot have a two-Power Navy or an Army that still goes about on horseback. We cannot afford that sort of thing. What is wanted is thought by those responsible for the defence of the country as to what is the greatest risk the country has to face, and then to see how they can revolutionise our defence forces in order to meet a completely new danger. I am nervous about Hitler, of course, but I am also nervous because I know the intense, almost religious conservatism of the Admiralty and the War Office. It took five years of war to shake them out of it and even then it hardly did the job. A man brought up with sailing ships believes in sailing ships and nothing else. I remember in the last War seeing a battery of artillery drawn up, each gun 10 yards apart, Number 1 in his proper place and at attention, and the limbers 20 yards in the rear. The battery was wiped out. They did exactly as they had been told in the drill book, and courage worthy of better knowledge was wiped out because their chiefs could not attune their minds to a new state of affairs.
It is vitally important that the Committee of Imperial Defence and the civil heads of the Admiralty, War Office and
Air Force should think clearer and enforce upon the professional expert the necessity of thinking about a new thing in a new way. Take the case of the War Office. We are living in a mechanical age and, whatever the next war is, it is bound to be run on wheels. I think every man in the Army to-day ought to be trained to drive a car, at any rate, if he cannot become an expert mechanic. To know how to fire a rifle is going to be a very small part of the job of getting the rifle there. I know it is said that a certain number can drive cars, and there are a certain number of officers' servants who manage to learn to drive, but that is not training the Army. The great lesson I learned in the last War, when I was for several months in the Navy, was that a gun on a moving platform is about as much use as a sick headache. If there is one gun on shore, with modern detectors, buried underground, concealed absolutely from the Fleet, that one gun, even a 4.7 gun, is enough to prevent any fleet coming anywhere near it. I have seen the "Queen Elizabeth" and other battleships blazing away salvos, shooting the best the Navy can shoot, from a moving platform, hut ridiculed by an Army officer who knew what good laud shooting was. You cannot hit a trench from a moving platform.
The conclusion I drew from the War, and I think it is the conclusion which most people drew who had anything to do with combined operations, is that the gun on board ship is not an up-to-date weapon, that it is not the gun which is wanted on a ship but aeroplanes. A number of small ships, even the smallest destroyers, each carrying an aeroplane, will be infinitely more useful than guns would be on those excessively-moving platforms. Hon. Members have no -idea of how difficult it is to shoot from one moving platform at another moving platform at a range of five or 12 miles. Could not the Navy think that the great and everlasting battle beween guns and armour has about come to an end. In the future a bomb dropped from the air will be 100 times more easy to direct and more deadly upon the objective than a shell. Look at that one small bomb which was dropped upon a warship in the Dutch West Indies. It smashed up the ship, and rendered it utterly useless—although, by the way, it was not intended to hit it. Warfare is revolutionised
now that you can get into the air, where you can see, and whence you can send communications right back to the Admiralty, and all over the world, by means of wireless. With that engine of offence the old-fashioned, obsolete, heavy gun becomes fairly useless. I suppose 2,000 aeroplanes could be built for the cost of one battleship, and one of those aeroplanes, if driven by a man of sufficient aetermination, could send that battleship to the bottom. The man may lose his life, possibly he will, but determination is all that is needed. The real difficulty is that everybody has a vested interest—not only the armament firms, but the Admirals, and not only the Admirals but the Generals.

Viscountess ASTOR: There is the Air Force. There is a vested interest there.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am coming to that. That is where you want it. We could save an enormous amount of money by stopping the building of these ships, by dropping the idea that we have to defend in commerce against Japanese raiders or American raiders and concentrating on the real danger to this country, which is that we shall be smothered with aeroplanes or gas. Turning to the Air Force itself, I daresay there is an excellent case for another 10 squadrons, but what I see is the desirability of building up a reserve of men who can drive the aeroplanes. We can build an aeroplane much quicker than we can train a man to use it. I do not know how many men are included in our Air Force, but I know perfectly well that not one in 10 of them knows how to drive an aeroplane. That task is reserved for the gentlemen; the mcehanics do not do it. That state of affairs, it seems to me, does not comprehend the danger in which this country may be in case of war.
We want reserves of men who may be called upon to go into the air, and if we are to build up such a reserve, the way to do it is not, in my opinion, by subsidising civil aviation, but by having shorter service in the Air Force, so as to pass through it and to train every man who has the courage to go into the Air Force. I do not believe people realise, simply because we do not think about it so much, what an easy thing it is to go
into the Army or the Navy compared with going into the Air Force. You require no courage at all in the Navy—

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: —except in the officers manning the ship. Yes, because in a ship you cannot run away. Nothing that anybody on board a ship does can save him if the ship is hit. The ship goes to glory, and they all go there too. In the Army you require a certain amount of courage to lead infantry and get them into the shell-holes, but in the Army you are kept up to your duty by the fact that everybody will see it if you are afraid. It is the presence of your companions there which stiffens your upper lip. The fear of disgrace makes you do your duty in the Army. But in the Air Force nobody will see you if you do not do your duty. Oh, I know that aeroplanes fly in formation, but how long do they remain in formation 1 In the Air Force you require a far higher type of courage than in any of the other services, because the man who is going to do his duty in the air risks his life without anybody knowing it. Therefore, if there are people in this country who are willing to go into the air service, for goodness' sake let them all go in and get trained. And I would see that they were rewarded on a scale commensurate with the talents required. The way to increase the reserve of man power is by shortening the period of service and passing through the service everybody willing to take the risks.
I want to see whether we cannot get better value for money and better security for the country without going to additional expense. Cannot the Committee of Imperial Defence think out these problems in order to see whether the complete change that has come over warfare and the completely new danger that faces this country—,a greater danger than we have had since 1914—cannot be met more effectually by using our brains, and by the civil heads of the fighting departments forcing their will upon their military and naval subordinates.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. WHITESIDE: I do not intend to criticise the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), because I find myself in complete
agreement with most of what he said. I would, however, like to draw the attention of the House to four words in this Motion "and our imperial communications." I am sure that the House will agree that if it is necessary for us to maintain an Air Force at all that Air Force should be sufficiently large to fulfil the duty which is entrusted to its care. Let us consider one point in our lines of imperial communication, Malta. The arguments which I shall use are equally applicable to Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Singapore and many other strategic points in our Empire. Malta is the coaling station of the Navy. It is the focal point of protection of our Eastern trade routes. Not one ship in the Royal Navy or one merchant vessel could go into Valetta harbour, if an enemy had command of the air at Malta. Every ship in the dockyard and every poop in the harbour would be blown to smithereens. What protection have we against aerial attack at Malta?
There are only two ways of preventing aerial attack. One is to possess a force sufficiently large to drive off an enemy, and the other is to have a force that can snake a counter-attack so decisive that it would not pay an enemy to launch an attack against us. What air forces have we at Malta? We have one flying-boat squadron. Hon. Members will appreciate the size of a squadron. That one squadron is supported by the Fleet air-arm, represented by the "Glorious," which carries three squadrons and one spotter squadron. Within one hour's flying of Malta, nearer than London is to Paris, lies Italy, with 750 first-line aircraft. Yet we are told that we must disarm, and that it is because we have maintained the right to use aircraft for police purposes, not in Europe but in far-off India, that we have jeopardised the Disarmament Conference. Did ever an Opposition so blatantly endeavour to mislead the electorate?
Let me turn to Gibraltar, which protects the narrow Straits through which our food ships must come. Those Straits are narrower than the Straits of Dover. In close proximity to Gibraltar is the French African Air Force. What machines have we at Gibraltar, to protect our interests? We have not even one "dud" civil machine. We have no aircraft of any description. And yet we are told
that we must disarm. That is the argument which has just been used by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). We have not the machines with which to disarm. We are urged by the Opposition to send strong notes to Germany and to Japan. If one of our ambassadors delivered a strong note to a continental Power to-day, he would be told to go home and tell this country that if we did not behave ourselves, we would, like naughty boys, be deprived of our suppers. When a country possesses an adequate force, with reserves behind, no enemy knows exactly by what force he will be opposed if he launches an attack. But we have an inadequate Air Force. We have practically no reserves, every country knows exactly by what force they might be opposed. It is only right that this country should know the facts and should not listen to a lot of sentiment.
One hon. Member has referred to the "Daily Mail" newspaper. I should have thought that he of all people, by this time, would have realised that the "Daily Mail" has been consistently attacking the Leader of the Conservative party for years, and that the attitude and the policy adopted by the "Daily Mail" is not the policy of the Conservative party. It certainly is not the policy of the Air Committee of this House. We do not want 10,000 fighters. We believe that if the policy of the "Daily Mail" were put into operation it would indeed jeopardise the peace of Europe. All that we ask is that the 10 squadrons which, 10 years ago, were laid down as the minimum number for security for this country—a number which was acknowledged by two Labour Governments, of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member—should be built. It is because we feel to-day that we are insecure and that our food supplies are inadequately protected, that we have taken this opportunity in the Debate to tell the country the truth.

10.2 p.m.

Captain FRASER: I rather deplore the tendency to make the question of Empire defence a party matter, because I cannot help thinking that it is a matter for all good citizens, that they should think about their own safety without regard to party politics or electioneering advantage. I read in the Lobby correspondent article
in the "Times" newspaper this morning a brief statement about this Debate. There would be a Debate on the air, he said, and it was expected that the House of Commons would express the view that the electors were not ready for rearmament. That is by the Lobby correspondent whose business it is to seek the minds of Members of this House. He seeks and that is what he thinks he finds. If that is so, how deplorable.
Is it our duty to allow what might be thought to be the minds of the electors, and the fear of our position at the next election perhaps, to stand between us and considerations of the country? It surely cannot be so. It is a very painful thing to throw overboard the feeling that humanity is sufficiently sensible to negotiate peace. I have come to it since the War. I have supported whole-heartedly the League of Nations and the effort made to bring about a sense of greater security by discussion. While I think that it is right and proper to pursue all those means, the whole of the people should be behind the Government in any discussion or negotiation which may bring the possibility of peace a little nearer. Meantime, what is the position of this Island? If trouble should arise in Europe and should threaten us, there would be no forgiveness for a Government or a Parliament which neglected to provide adequate defence.
I ask myself whether it is true that we are too weak in the air and have not the cruisers to protect our commerce. It would be too late, afterwards, to say that we made every possible gesture and that we tried to use the moral argument. Surely the evidence has shown us that moral argument without force to support it does not cut very much ice. It is a dreadful thing to have to say, but the idea that we should be afraid of our electors when the safety of the country and the integrity of the Empire are at stake is positively shocking.
I believe that there are various links which keep the Empire together, some sentimental and some otherwise. I am sure that one of them is the belief in the Empire that this Motherland will be able to protect herself and her lines of communication in case of struggle. I wonder if that confidence is now as great as it has been at other times? I honestly
believe that the Forces of the Crown are inadequate for the purposes for which they would be required were trouble to arise in Europe, and I feel that it is the duty of every Member who believes that to say so in his constituency. I believe that the majority of Members think that, but are still wondering—many of them are, I know—whether the time has come to say so. Let them say it, and let them get the people to realise that, in the world as it is now constituted, the only real safety lies in a strong right arm, and in the power to use its strength in the proper place and at the right time.
There is one other point. I am not one of those who want to get the civilian population panicky about war, but it is certainly true that in the old days, when war was a, matter for experts and professional soldiers, sailors and airmen, they were taught every measure of defence. If now war is a matter for the civilian population, is it not time that the Committee of Imperial Defence gave consideration to the question of teaching the civilian population also how to defend itself? The matter, quite obviously, has been discussed and gone into by the greatest experts, who must have views about it; the only thing they can be in doubt about is as to when is the time. I believe that the time is now—not because of any particular immediate threat, but because it takes a very long time for the people to realise what the peril is, and to come to think sanely about it. It might not be a bad thing if voluntary lectures were given, and if some of the instruction which is already given to fire brigades and other organisations were spread a little more widely, as to how civilian people ought to behave in case some of the modern weapons, which can be used, were used among them. I do not think our people would be so foolish as not to take a reasonable view about preserving their own existence if they knew the facts, but, so long as the Government are assuring them that negotiations are likely to bring about a solution in Europe, the people are apt to say, "Very well, let it stay there." We are not a people who look for trouble, and I am not suggesting that we should look for trouble, but I think it is time that Members who, in the Smoking-room and privately among themselves, have a perfectly clear view as
to the inadequacy of our armed forces, should be prepared to stand up and say so in their constituencies.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have listened to every speech that has been delivered in this Debate, and I think I shall not be exaggerating if I say that the thought in the minds of a large number of those who are here to-night is that we are back 20 years. The Debate to-night is very reminiscent of Debates that took place quite frequently between 1910 and 1914. The arguments are very like the arguments then advanced; the fears apprehended are very like the fears that were then apprehended; the exhortations are exactly the same exhortations as were then advanced. The only thing that is missing is that we have not identified the enemy. Several hon. Members have been making oblique suggestions as to who might be a possible enemy, but clear identification is as yet lacking.
The party of which I am a Member has been engaged in recent months—and not merely in recent months, but throughout its lifetime, for that matter—in vigorous advocacy of the principles of peace between nations; and in particular, in recent years, it has advanced the cause of disarmament to the best of its ability. make no apology for that. It is quite true that we have done it, and I hope we shall continue to do it so long as we have voices to give expression to our views. But, because we have done that, we have been accused of in some way misrepresenting the situation, of scaremongering and so on. If the electors from the various constituencies where by-elections have taken place in recent months could have been in this House to-night, and could have listened to the speeches in support of this Motion and the Amendment, I think they would agree with me— I do not want to exaggerate it—that all that the Labour party has said concerning the dangers of the international situation from the point of view of our contribution to it has been abundantly justified by what we have heard to-night.
I would like to ask who, after all, is responsible for having occasioned these doubts concerning the pacific intentions of the Government and its supporters? Is it we? Will hon. Gentlemen deny what I think is an ascertainable, undeniable fact, that the Conservative party
itself, at its own annual demonstration, carried an explicit resolution about increased armaments, saying: "Let us have done with this policy of disarmament"?

Viscountess ASTOR: That was rescinded.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: That was carried. And not only that, but we have heard expressions of opinion from representative speakers. Here is a Motion, advanced by supporters of the Government, in which we are again invited to consider the claims for increased armaments in respect of one arm of the Service. Not so long ago the Admiralty got in with its extra cruisers—[Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"]—extra-sized cruisers; I am sorry. Here now is the Air Ministry being encouraged to put in its claim. Significantly enough, this week there was published a document, which I understand would normally be regarded as a secret document, giving us the result of certain manoeuvres which took place in the Mediterranean, and we are told that certain deductions are to be drawn from these manoeuvres. Why we are invited to read this document now I cannot understand, except that it is curious that we are getting this tremendous drive on every hand for increased armaments—the Navy, the Air Force, and I have not the faintest doubt the Army will not be outdone in this business. They, too, will come along presently with a demand for increased armaments. To-night we have this Motion. But that is not all. There has been an announcement in another place, which I heard myself, concerning the Government's policy in regard to air armaments. I understand the Lord President of the Council—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not refer to what has taken place in another place.

Mr. JONES: I am not quoting. I take it I may refer—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not refer to it.

Mr. JONES: Do I understand—I merely ask for information—that I may not refer even to a Government declaration in another place upon a matter of public concern?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Anything that has taken place in Debate in another House cannot be referred to.

Mr. LANSBURY: Are we at liberty to ask the Lord President whether he will make a similar statement to that which has been made, or a statement dealing with that statement which has been made in another House by the Secretary of State for Air? I do not understand that the rule is that we cannot refer to a statement made in that House. I understand we must not quote from speeches made in another place.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It goes rather further than the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not think there is anything wrong in an hon. Member saying he understands that a pronouncement of Government policy has been made elsewhere.

Mr. JONES: That will satisfy me, and I will not carry the controversy any further. An announcement has been made in another place, and I, therefore, ask the Lord President if he will take this House also into his confidence when he speaks later, so that this House may know precisely what the attitude of the Government is in regard to air armaments. As I understand it, our position in regard to the Motion is this: First, whatever the merits of the proposition embodied in the Motion may be, I should submit that it is extremely ill-timed. The Disarmament Conference is still in being. Very substantial difficulties have been encountered in connection with that Conference; nevertheless, it is still in being, and we presume, indeed we understand from pronouncements that have been made in the House, that it is the faith of the Government that sooner or later conditions may prevail which will enable the Disarmament Conference to be carried to a successful issue. If that is the view of the Government—I hope it is the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman too—I submit that it is an ill service to the Government, which itself has propounded a draft convention which has been accepted as the basis of discussion at Geneva, to queer the pitch by propounding this proposition before the Disarmament Conference has been able to arrive at some final conclusion. I do not anticipate that the Conerence will be able to conclude its labours immediately, but
it must surely soon arrive at a decision upon the general principles embodied in the draft convention.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how long the Disarmament Conference has been sitting?

Mr. JONES: It has been sitting since the beginning of last year, and, of course, there was the preparatory committee before that, but, since so much time has already been devoted to the subject, that ought to enable us to believe that much less time will be necessary to arrive at some sort of agreement upon general principles. And until that agreement is arrived at, I submit that this is an exceedingly ill-timed Motion. In addition, I want to take the question of principle of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and submit to him that it really is in days like these somewhat futile—I know that it will sound unorthodox to him—to suggest that we should increase enormously our expenditure upon armaments and enlarge the measure of our equipment in air armaments. I will tell him why. What I represent in this matter is not new, because more authoritative persons than I have expressed themselves on this matter long ago in this House. Surely, you have no right to mislead the public of this country, even in the matter of armaments being a source of security. Are the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends in a position to be able to say to the people of this country: "You spend X millions of pounds upon this form of armaments, and in return we will give you security." The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot give an affirmative answer to that proposition.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: rose—

Mr. JONES: I cannot give way again. I am sorry. I am just propounding a proposition.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Let him answer.

Mr. JONES: Please. Unless you can answer that question affirmatively, I submit that it is inviting the public of this country to spend millions upon the hazard of that experiment. You are inviting them to do something which you are not entitled to do. Consequently, not only am I entitled to say that that
is a false proposition to offer, but I cite in my support the Lord President of the Council, who has been quoted already in the House to-night. He told us last year in a speech which will be memorable long after we have gone from the scene, that it is literally impossible to guarantee absolute security to anybody from invasion by air. That is on his authority, and he says that the Government of the day—and not only our Government but other Governments—have not any expert anywhere who can give them that assurance. If you cannot get that assurance, why mislead public opinion in the belief that expenditure of X millions of pounds will give them some sort of security in that way. In that respect, I see that an evening paper to-night says:
One of the oracles declares that a minimum of 216 fighting machines can defend London, while we have only 156 available. But General Groves, formerly Director of Flying, recalls that in 1918 we had 400 machines, 480 guns, 700 searchlights, and 15,000 men trying to defend London, and they were all 'barely adequate' to ward off the 40 German aeroplanes sent to bomb the City.
That is not my evidence, but evidence taken from that article, and it all tends to show how fallacious it is to rely upon increased aerial equipment to guarantee security against invasion nowadays. Not only do we as inexpert people say so, but experts tend to confirm our opinion as to the futility of relying upon this type of defence. In the ultimate resort it seems to me that we shall have to go back to this final issue—either we accept for the future, both in air armaments and other armaments, re-armament for Europe, or we shall have to accept the other alternative of disarmament for Europe. I should be glad to know the view of the Government, having regard to the fact that we are told that the Government will have no option but to begin building upwards by continuing our efforts to secure international agreement, and fixing a parity to which other nations will subscribe.
We have to make up our minds—I said this a fortnight ago, and it is vitally important to us as it is to the rest of Europe—whether we are going to contemplate rearmament among the nations of the world. If there is to be rearmament, then from the hon. and gallant Member's point of view there is some-
thing to be said for his Motion, but if the point of view is what I have always understood to be the point of view of the Government, namely, that we have to turn our faces in the direction of the limitation of armaments or to disarmament, then the Resolution is ill-timed and indefensible. We take the view, and we have tried to advance it here before, that in the ultimate resort you have to tackle this question of armaments in Europe and the world by agreement, and we have advanced the proposition that the time has come when you ought to consider the international control of aviation and in particular, if you like, civil aviation, because it is no use talking about military aviation being controlled without considering also civil aviation.
The hon. and gallant Member opposite said, quite frankly, that you could not settle this problem by dealing with the military side alone, because civil aviation is subsidised by nations to such a degree that even the development of civil aviation in the end will only subserve the interests of the military if the occasion should arise. I should like to suggest that many of the objections advanced against the international control of civil aviation are not nearly as formidable as hon. Members would sometimes seem to suggest. I admit that there are great technical difficulties, but it is quite clear that even if aviation develops as it does now, each nation concerned with its own development, the experts will compel the nations to arrive at Conventions with each other for various purposes. Two or three international Conventions have been arrived at recently in the aviation world. There is the Warsaw Convention and the Rome Convention dealing with third party liability. Conventions of that sort will be forced upon aviators by reason of acquired experience. There is this advantage in regard to the aviator compared with the military or naval man, that the flying man in his daily work—I am not now speaking of the military side but the civil side—traverses foreign countries day by day. Those who fly from Croydon to Paris fly over French territory, and get accustomed to French ways and acquainted with French customs and manners. Their daily task compels them to acquaint themselves with the mentality of the people over whose territory they pass. Therefore,
owing to the very nature of things future necessity will drive us to arrive at some sort of convention or agreement in order to make ordinary developments of aviation possible.
That is a different proposition from formal international control of aviation. It means that an international mind and an international approach is becoming more and more inevitable by reason of the very necessities of the times. We hope that the pronouncement which the Lord President of the Council is going to make, or the interpretation he is going to give of the announcement made in another place, will be favourable from our point of view. Let me recall to the right hon. Gentleman's attention a statement which he made at Birmingham, that we either stopped the development of armaments or we get launched upon a competition between ourselves and other nations. In the latter event, said the right hon. Gentleman, it is goodbye to social reform for a generation or for half a century or more. In that I am in entire agreement with him. The party for whom I speak believes in developing the social services of this country. Any further expenditure on armaments must cripple these social services, and we believe that it will be a far better contribution to the health, happiness and contentment of our people to develop our social services than to embark on the hazardous experiment of giving a false sense of security to the people by a large expenditure on armaments.

10.33 p.m.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I have sat through almost all of this most interesting Debate, and I draw quite a different inference from it than that drawn by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member who brought the subject before the House. Let us remember that the reason for bringing forward the Motion to-day was to call attention to the inferiority of the position of this country with regard to certain armaments, a position which has occurred solely because of the sincerity of the efforts of this country to get a reduction in armaments. At a moment when there is a good deal of anxiety in the world I cannot blame the two hon. and gallant Members for
having brought the matter before the House and for having discussed it so temperately as they have done. The hon. and gallant Member who introduced the Motion was a pioneer not only in the air service of this country but in the antiaircraft defence of London, and the other a gallant airman in the War.
I should like to remind hon. Members opposite of what they may find difficult to realise and hard to believe, but probably they have not had the experience I have; and that is that the most ardent pacificists, using the word in its best sense, are among the soldiers and sailors and airmen of our country who took part in the last war and who know what the next war will be like. And when they come to us and speak about the security of the country, I think we might at least give them credit for the motive that lies behind what they say. I would remind the House, and particularly the Opposition, among whom there are not many who have yet shared the responsibility of government, what a tremendous responsibility rests upon the Government of this country at any time, in this, that they are striving for peace by agreement, or rather, let me say, striving for disarmament which will make war more difficult; because peace, ultimately, is a matter of will and not of armament.
I should like to tell the House that on Armistice Day, at the old University of which I have the honour to be Chancellor, there was a procession; a procession of gentlemen who carried banners bearing the words "No More War." They were very ardent in their cause. The sequel will show that they had not the will. They met a number of gentlemen who were offended at this procession taking place on this day and who barred their way. The "No More War" gentlemen were determined to go on; the others were determined that they should not; and soon there began one of the historic fights of Cambridge University, in which the "No More War" party fought with all the gallantry of the bulldog breed, a gallantry that the Leader of the party opposite would like to see us all exercise to stop wars. I just mention that in passing, to show that there must be the will, and I think a great many of the Members of this House of all parties have the will.
There is one other observation I should like to make on a Motion which is a
private Member's Motion. I do wish to be clearly understood, and particularly by my hon. Friends who opened the Debate. A Minister comes down to elucidate matters on a Debate of this kind, or if he thinks there is something in the Resolution which is moved which it might be wiser to argue. He does not come down to dictate. He has not the power to dictate if he wants to. The House is free to come to any decision it likes by an unfettered vote. I have no wish to interfere with it. Let that be perfectly clearly and plainly understood. In 1923—in the June it was, I think—the scheme for the Home Defence Force in the air, which has been alluded to several times to-day, was first brought before Parliament; and I must remind the House that we have consistently lagged behind that programme—Conservative Governments and Labour Governments—and that has been done, whether wisely or not, deliberately and with the assent of the House of Commons. The same is true of the cruiser programme. Cruiser construction was slowed down by Conservative Governments, and, I think, by Labour Governments, although I seem to remember that they did not make up a deficiency caused under my Government.
I mention that to show what a contribution and an example we have made, and I want to say here what I have said before: that we cannot remain indefinitely as we are. One hon. Member said, "Can there not be a time limit?" I do not think we can fix a time limit. It is perfectly clear that there must be agreement before too long or there will not be agreement, but I shall come to that in a moment. It is equally clear that we cannot stand alone in the world in our present position with regard to defence, whether in the air, or at sea, or on the land, and I think that should be made perfectly clear both in this country and abroad. For that reason, the Government agree to accept the sentence about inadequacy—and on that understanding which I have just mentioned.
I would like to refer to the speech which I made some months ago on the air which has been liberally quoted from to-day by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). That was my profound conviction—what I said that day. It is my profound conviction still, and I gather from various speeches that there
are many parts of it which commend themselves to hon. Members who have addressed the House this evening. But, since that time, I recognise that the world is not prepared to go as far as that yet. I believe the time will come. I hope it will, but we have to go in all these matters as far as we can. Let us consider for a moment the three alternatives which I put to the House on Monday and which again were referred to this evening. The first alternative is disarmament to the level of Germany's disarmament. Again, there are immense difficulties in the way of effecting that. One of my difficulties here, and of anyone indeed who has to speak on this matter, is that they cannot tell all they know. It is impossible. If I were to stand here and to say where the difficulties are, and who the people are who raise those difficulties, it would be perfectly impossible ever to advance one inch with regard to disarmament. One's lips are sealed.
The second alternative is a limitation of armaments doing away with the big and heavy offensive weapons, which would mean that Germany would be allowed the weapons which she has now got, up to the limit of the convention. Those countries which had exceeded that limit would have to come down and countries which were inside that limit could please themselves as to what they did. But I am certain that for the defence of this country we should have to be on equal terms with the other countries in the convention. That form of limitation, although I know it falls far short of what hon. Members opposite would desire to see, would at any rate make aggressive war infinitely harder than it has been in the past, and it has this advantage, that in working it under direct international supervision, which I believe to be an essential corollary, we should know at the end of a few years whether all the nations of the world, if they once came in, were abiding loyally by it. If they were, you would have there a jumping off ground for further disarmament. It may be that the dream of many in this House might he, if not wholly, partially realised within a time that many living may see, and that in itself is far, far more than many would have expected 20 years ago, or even thought possible only a few years ago. We have naturally, from the wording of the Motion, been
discussing the air to-day, but let us never forget, in discussing defence, that we have been looking at only one angle of it and that we must consider it, as regards the United Kingdom and the Empire and our commerce, as a whole, of which the air is indeed a very important part, and possibly in some ways the most, vital part. Our world responsibilities and indeed our own defence here, if war should come, must involve every arm.
I understand that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), part of whose speech I am sorry I did not hear, touched on a point touched on by one or two other speakers, and that was the necessity of examining and considering the defence Estimates as a whole. I may say that I am in full agreement with that, and I speak for the Government when I say that they too are in full agreement. In fact, regarding the Estimates of the coming year, which will be presented within a few months now to this House, those Estimates will be examined on that basis, on the basis of the united defence of the country. We shall see what we have to spend, we shall know then what the disarmament position in Europe is better than we know it now, and we shall go very carefully into the three Services concerned to see where we can best repair deficiencies in the defence as a whole. I am sure that that is the right way to work, and it is the way that we are adopting this year.
But what has made me a little nervous about the form of this Motion is the disarmament situation itself. Everyone knows how delicate that is. I have by no means, and I am quite sure that none of my colieagues has, lost hype at all. We are going on, and we are going on by every means that we can to achieve an agreed result, but the first thing, as is obvious and as has been said both by the Foreign Secretary and by myself in speeches, and possibly by other Ministers, is this, that contact must be established with Germany.
Now on the Continent they are not extraordinarily familiar with our system of procedure. We know in this country exactly how much value to attach to a Motion that may be carried unanimously in the House on a private Members' night. It does
not bind the Government of the day. If they were to read abroad in the newspapers, in Paris, Berlin or Rome, that the House of Commons had passed this Motion as it stands, they would regard it as a definite commitment of Government policy. What would be the result of that? The result would be that Germany would see this country, which for 10 years has been holding its hand in armaments in the hope of achieving results by a Convention, whose expenditure during the last five years has decreased on effective armaments whereas those of Japan, Italy, France and Russia (Russia more than any of them) have all gone up, suddenly announcing to the world that it is going to increase, or wants to increase, quickly, its air armaments, and that is one of the armaments which at present is denied to Germany.
How in those circumstances could Germany appreciate our good faith, when she feels, "Well, after all, here is England, who has been holding back her air programme and her naval programme for 10 years, now suddenly, when she thinks there is a chance of agreement, beginning to move ahead and to make a still greater difference between herself and us"? It would in my view create the worst possible atmosphere in that country, at a moment when, if we are to get a settled Convention, it is essential that the conversations should take place in the best possible atmosphere. That is the reason which led me to intervene in this Debate and to address these few words. to the House. We value at this time particularly the support of the House of Commons in going forward to pursue this most difficult aim of disarmament and to try to save the Convention at a moment when many hands are lifted against it, at a time when there are difficulties so obvious that I will not mention them, but which must be plain to everyone who has eyes to see them and who casts those eyes round the world.
Therefore I hope that, if it seems fit to my hon. Friends who introduced this Motion—if they feel that I have spoken on this subject with sympathy and with understanding—they may see their way to support an Amendment which we would gladly accept as a Government and which we should regard as giving us a backing for the work that lies before us. I am afraid that it is almost too much to ask
hon. Members opposite to join in that attitude. They have their own views, strong views, which we respect and which were put with force, as usual, by the hon. Member who spoke. I would only say to them that it would be A real help to the cause which they have so much advanced in this House if the House on this occasion could speak with a single united voice.

Mr. LANSBURY: The question that we really wanted the right hon. Gentleman to answer is not answered. That is the question. May I hand to the right hon. Gentleman the quotation, which I Am not allowed to read?

,Mr. BALDWIN: To be quite frank, and I am always frank with the right hon. Gentleman, I have not the slightest idea what has been said in another place today. I had not the slightest idea to what he referred, and I certainly cannot possibly on the strength of an extract without its context, which I have not even read yet, offer an opinion. I have stated my own views, which happen to be the views of the Government, and I do not think could have spoken much more clearly. I have nothing to add.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is extremely difficult to deal with this matter—

Mr. BALDWIN: It is difficult for me, too.

Mr. LANSBURY: Ministers do not as a rule make very serious statements about anything, especially on a matter of such supreme importance as this, and it is extremely difficult with your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to put the subject in a way which I should have thought for the public interest it should have been put—straightforwardly here this evening.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that what has occurred shows the very salutary nature of that Rule. Some hon. Members were able to hear what was said in another place and others who stayed here were not able to do so.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council to understand that an important statement of Government policy on this matter has been made in another place. About that there is no question, and I
want most emphatically to protest against the right hon. Gentleman not dealing with it here this evening.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Rule, which is perfectly definite, and which is that a Member may not refer to a Debate in another place which has taken place in the same Session of Parliament.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not referring to any Debate at all. I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that an important statement on Government policy on air defence ought to have been made in this House to-night. The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement, and he has not been able for some reason or other—perhaps because there is not that proper connection between Ministers that there ought to be—to tell the House exactly what the Government policy is. In these circumstances, we can only register our opinion by going into the Lobby against them if there is a vote on either the Motion or the Amendment. I have followed this Debate and the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and if it means anything at all it means that he sympathises very much with the statements that have been made in the Debate, and that, unless we almost immediately get a settlement, the Government are determined to increase armaments instead of remaining stationary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"l That is our opinion, and we shall register that opinion in the Lobby.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I put this point. A statement has been made in another place. Is this House to be precluded from discussing that statement once it has been broadcast outside and become a question of public policy? Has it not ceased to be a statement in the other place the moment it is conveyed to the country?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members have not referred to it except as a, statement in another place, and that is out of order.

Rear-Admiral SUETER rose in, his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that the House is probably ready to come to a decision.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Division No. 4.]
AYES.
[11.3 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Palmer, Francis Noel


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gledhill, Gilbert
Pearson, William U.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Goff, Sir Park
Penny, Sir George


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Petherick, M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pike, Cecil F.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hoare, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rea, Walter Russell


Blindell, James
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O J. (Aston)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Borodale, Viscount
Hopkinson, Austin
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rickards, George William


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ropner, Colonel L.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Janner, Barnett
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Salt, Edward W.


Burnett, John George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.
Scone, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Copeland, Ida
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Somervell, Sir Donald


Craven-Ellis, William
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Soper, Richard


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cross, R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Crossley, A. C.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spens, William Patrick


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Eastwood, John Francis
Magnay, Thomas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Maitland, Adam
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Summersby, Charles H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon, Walter
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Templeton, William P.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Milne, Charles
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Charier (Devon, Torquay


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Womersley, Walter James


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)



Fox, Sir Gifford
Morrison, William Shephard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Captain Ian
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wing-Commander James and


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Captain Gunston.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William



Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 31.

The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 30.

Blindell, James
Harbord, Arthur
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Borodale, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Bossom, A. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Rickards, George William


Burnett, John George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Marry, Reginald George
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salt, Edward W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Liddell, Walter S.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Scone, Lord


Copeland, Ida
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sinclair, Col.T. (Queen's Unv.,Belfast)


Cross, R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crossley, A. C.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Soper, Richard


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Donner, P. W.
McKie, John Hamilton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Spens, William Patrick


Eastwood, John Francis
Magnay, Thomas
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Eden, Robert Anthony
Maitland, Adam
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Martin, Thomas B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Summersby, Charles H.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Milne, Charles
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Moore-Brabwon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, William Shepherd
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gledhill, Gilbert
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Goff, Sir Park
Pearson, William G.



Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wing-Commander James and


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Petherick, M.
Captain Gunston


Hanbury, Cecil
Pike, Cecil F.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William



Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John
Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

Resolved,
That this House views with grave disquiet the present inadequacy of the provision made for the air defence of these islands, the Empire overseas, and our imperial communications, and confirms its full support of the policy of His Majesty's Government in working for the objects in respect of air policy which are declared in the British Draft Convention.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn".—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.